The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a doping case involving a Spanish professional tennis player, P., who tested positive for Hydrochlorothiazide and Amiloride, substances classified as diuretics and masking agents under the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP). The player admitted to the adverse finding but claimed the substances were prescribed by her doctor for therapeutic reasons related to fluid retention and weight issues. She argued she bore no significant fault or negligence, as the medication was prescribed with professional intent. However, the CAS panel emphasized that athletes have a strict duty to ensure any medication complies with anti-doping rules, regardless of medical advice. The panel found the player failed to exercise sufficient diligence, as her doctor was not a sports specialist and she did not declare the medication on her doping control form. The panel upheld the two-year suspension imposed by the International Tennis Federation (ITF), rejecting her appeal for a reduced sanction. The decision reinforced the strict liability principle, holding athletes accountable for substances in their bodies, even if unintentionally ingested.
The case (CAS 2008/A/1488 P. v. ITF) was heard de novo under Article R57 of the CAS Code, allowing a full review of facts and law. The applicable law was the TADP 2007, as the sample was collected in June 2007. The central issue was whether P. demonstrated "No Significant Fault or Negligence" to warrant a reduced suspension under TADP Article M.5.2. P. admitted the violation but claimed it was unintentional, as she relied on her doctor’s prescription and was unaware the medication contained prohibited substances. The ITF accepted her explanation for how the substances entered her system but argued she failed to prove no significant fault. The panel agreed, noting P. did not adequately verify the medication’s compliance with anti-doping rules. She asked her doctor if the drug enhanced performance but did not inquire about prohibited substances or provide anti-doping information. The panel stressed that athletes bear sole responsibility for compliance, and reliance on a doctor’s prescription does not absolve this duty.
The panel referenced prior cases where athletes failed to demonstrate sufficient diligence, reinforcing that ignorance or reliance on medical professionals does not meet the standard for "No Significant Fault or Negligence." P.’s failure to check the medication against the prohibited list or inform her doctor of her anti-doping obligations showed a lack of reasonable care. The panel upheld the original decision, concluding P.’s actions did not justify reducing her suspension, as doing so would undermine anti-doping standards. The ruling emphasized the importance of athletes exercising utmost caution to prevent inadvertent violations.
The panel also acknowledged the upcoming 2009 WADA Code, which introduces provisions for reduced sanctions in cases involving specified substances without intent to enhance performance. While the current rules applied to P.’s case, the panel suggested she seek reconsideration under the new provisions once they took effect. Ultimately, the CAS denied P.’s appeal and upheld the ITF’s decision, reinforcing the strict liability principle and the need for athletes to adhere to clear compliance standards.