The case involves swimmer C., who tested positive for the banned substance etilefrine after winning a long-distance swimming competition in 1995. The substance was detected in her urine samples at levels significantly above the threshold. Under FINA's strict liability rule, the mere presence of a prohibited substance constitutes a doping violation, leading to an automatic two-year suspension. C. claimed the substance was accidentally administered by her coach without her knowledge, as he admitted giving her a capsule of Effortil, which contained etilefrine, during the race. The French Swimming Federation initially chose not to sanction her due to lack of evidence of intentional doping, but FINA overruled this decision, imposing the suspension based on its strict liability principle, which holds athletes responsible regardless of intent or fault.
C. appealed the decision to FINA's Bureau, which upheld the suspension, and then to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS confirmed that FINA's rules establish strict liability, meaning the athlete's lack of intent or knowledge does not absolve them of responsibility. While mitigating circumstances could influence disciplinary sanctions, they do not negate the violation itself. The CAS upheld the two-year suspension, emphasizing that unintentional ingestion, even if caused by a coach's error, is not a valid defense. This reinforced the principle that athletes bear ultimate responsibility for substances in their body, regardless of how they got there.
The case highlights the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations, where the presence of a banned substance alone suffices for a violation, irrespective of intent. It also demonstrates the limited scope for appeals, as the rules prioritize sport integrity over individual claims of innocence. The CAS ruling affirmed FINA's authority to enforce its regulations strictly, ensuring consistency in anti-doping measures. However, the tribunal also noted the need for proportionality in sanctions, referencing a prior case where an Australian swimmer received only a warning because the substance did not enhance performance. In C.'s case, uncertainties remained about the timing, quantity, and effects of the substance, and her coach's inconsistent statements weakened her defense.
Ultimately, the CAS partially upheld C.'s appeal, ruling that the suspension she served from January 1995 to March 1996 was sufficient given her level of culpability and exemplary character. The decision underscored the importance of balancing strict anti-doping measures with fairness, ending her suspension early to reflect the circumstances. This case illustrates the complexities of doping enforcement, where rigid rules must sometimes be tempered with flexibility to ensure just outcomes. The CAS's stance reflects an effort to reconcile the need for strict anti-doping measures with fairness to athletes who may be inadvertently implicated.