The case involves a swimmer, L., who was sanctioned by the International Swimming Federation (FINA) for a doping violation related to the substance salbutamol, which he used to treat his asthma. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reviewed the case and ultimately overturned FINA's decision, lifting the two-year suspension imposed on L. The key issues revolved around the strict liability standard in doping cases, the special status of salbutamol under FINA rules, and whether L.'s failure to declare its use constituted a doping offense. FINA's Medical Rules apply a strict liability standard, meaning the presence of a banned substance is sufficient for a violation, regardless of intent. However, salbutamol has an exceptional status: while it is not entirely banned, its inhalation is permitted if declared to the authorities. L. had a documented history of asthma and had previously declared his use of salbutamol in other doping tests, which returned negative results. In this instance, he failed to declare salbutamol on the doping control form, leading FINA to initiate proceedings. The CAS found that L.'s extensive medical records and prior notifications about his asthma treatment were sufficient to establish legitimate use, despite the omission in the form. The panel concluded that no doping offense had occurred.
The case also involved a damage claim by L. against FINA for breach of contract and infringement of his personality rights. L. argued that the suspension caused him financial and reputational harm, including lost sponsorships and grants. The CAS dismissed this claim, ruling that FINA had acted in good faith by initiating proceedings after detecting salbutamol without a declaration. The panel found no fault in FINA's actions and emphasized that L. failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the doping procedure and his alleged losses. Under Swiss law, the relationship between a sports federation and its members is not considered contractual, meaning contractual liability rules do not apply. Instead, damages must be pursued under tort law, which requires proof of damage, causation, unlawfulness, and negligence. The panel concluded that L. did not meet these requirements.
The procedural history revealed that L. was initially suspended for two years by FINA’s Executive Committee, a decision upheld by the FINA Bureau after an appeal. L. then appealed to the CAS, which granted a stay of execution, allowing him to compete in the European Championships while the case was pending. The CAS ultimately overturned FINA’s decision, lifting the suspension and rejecting the damage claim. The ruling emphasized the importance of context in doping cases involving therapeutic use exemptions and highlighted the need for clear communication between athletes and anti-doping authorities. The CAS affirmed that while strict liability is a cornerstone of anti-doping regulations, exceptional circumstances, such as documented medical use, can justify overturning sanctions. The decision reinforced the principle that anti-doping rules must balance fairness with the need to protect clean sport.
The case underscores the importance of clear documentation and communication in anti-doping regulations, particularly for athletes with legitimate medical needs. The panel's decision emphasized that the primary goal of notification rules is to verify medical necessity, which was adequately demonstrated in L.'s case through prior documentation and institutional awareness. However, the panel also noted that L.'s failure to declare his medication on the doping test form was a significant oversight, even if it did not ultimately constitute a doping offense. The case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in applying strict liability principles to medically necessary treatments and the need for athletes to meticulously adhere to reporting requirements to avoid unnecessary complications.