The case involves an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) and the Italian Boxing Federation (FPI) concerning the suspension of boxer Elga Comastri for a doping violation. Comastri tested positive for a metabolite of cocaine during the Italian women’s national boxing championship in May 2007. She admitted to using cocaine a week before the competition, believing it would leave her system within three days. Initially, the Italian authorities imposed a one-year suspension, later increased to one year and eight months, citing some fault but not significant negligence. WADA appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that Comastri’s actions demonstrated significant fault or negligence, warranting the standard two-year suspension under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC).
The CAS panel examined whether Comastri committed an anti-doping violation, whether she had a valid defense, and the appropriate sanction. It confirmed that Comastri had committed a doping offense, as cocaine is a prohibited substance under the WADC. The panel rejected her defense, emphasizing that willfully ingesting a prohibited substance, regardless of peer pressure or contrition, constitutes unmitigated fault. It also noted that allowing reductions in such cases would create loopholes undermining anti-doping regulations. The panel ruled that Comastri’s provisional suspension prior to the hearing should count toward her total suspension period. Ultimately, the panel upheld WADA’s appeal, imposing a two-year suspension on Comastri, retroactively crediting the time she had already served.
The decision underscores the strict liability principle in doping cases, where athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances in their bodies, with limited exceptions for reducing sanctions. The panel emphasized that athletes bear a strict duty to monitor and control what enters their bodies, and knowingly consuming a prohibited substance, regardless of context, constitutes negligence. The defense of "no significant fault or negligence" is only viable if the athlete’s fault is minimal in relation to the violation, which was not the case here. The panel rejected arguments based on peer pressure or ignorance, stating these do not mitigate fault.
The CAS ruling set aside the previous decision by the Italian authorities and upheld the sanctions in accordance with the WADC. It disqualified all competitive results between the sample collection date and the provisional suspension, including forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes. The decision reinforces the rigorous expectations placed on athletes under anti-doping regulations and the limited circumstances under which sanctions may be reduced. The panel’s ruling is final, dismissing all other appeals or requests for relief, and serves as a reminder of the strict enforcement of anti-doping rules to maintain fairness in sports.