The case revolves around an appeal by the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) against the Confederação Brasileira de Desportos Aquáticos (CBDA) and swimmer G. concerning doping violations during the 2006 Brazilian Swimming Championship. G.'s urine samples showed abnormalities, including microbial degradation, elevated testosterone/epitestosterone (T/E) ratios, and evidence of exogenous testosterone. Despite these findings, CBDA, relying on its Medical Director's opinion, initially deemed the results inconclusive and declined to impose sanctions. FINA contested this, asserting that the results constituted adverse analytical findings and demanded a B-sample analysis, which confirmed the presence of prohibited substances.
FINA argued that CBDA failed to comply with FINA Doping Control Rules, which mandate adherence to the World Anti-Doping Code (WADA Code) and require proper hearings and sanctions for violations. The dispute centered on whether CBDA's communications constituted a formal "decision" under FINA rules, enabling FINA to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS panel ruled that CBDA's actions did not amount to a formal decision, as no adjudication or hearing had occurred. The panel stressed that CAS, as an appellate body, lacks jurisdiction if internal remedies, such as a first-instance hearing, remain unexhausted.
The case underscored procedural fairness, particularly the athlete's right to a timely and impartial hearing before any CAS appeal. Since CBDA had not issued a formal decision or conducted a hearing, FINA's appeal was premature. The panel emphasized that CAS cannot intervene unless all internal legal remedies are exhausted, safeguarding athletes' due process rights. The ruling highlighted the necessity of clear, formal decisions before appeals can proceed and dismissed FINA's appeal due to jurisdictional limitations.
Further, the panel noted that FINA could have invoked its rules to compel a hearing before its Doping Panel if CBDA delayed beyond three months. Instead, FINA bypassed this step, denying G. her right to a first-instance hearing. The panel criticized this procedural misstep, especially given the severe potential sanctions, such as a two-year suspension, which require legal review. The correspondence between CBDA and FINA revealed CBDA's refusal to hold a hearing, as it maintained the results were inconclusive.
Ultimately, CAS ruled it lacked jurisdiction to decide FINA's appeal regarding CBDA's 2007 letter, as no prior hearing or decision had been issued. The panel dismissed FINA's subsidiary motion to refer the case back to CBDA, citing no legal basis for such action. The case illustrates the strict procedural requirements in anti-doping adjudications and the importance of exhausting internal remedies before pursuing appeals. It reaffirms the need for procedural fairness to protect athletes' rights in doping cases.