The case involves A.C., a New Zealand water polo player who tested positive for salbutamol during the 1995 Junior Men's Waterpolo World Championships in Dunkirk, France. The Fédération Internationale de Natation Amateur (FINA) suspended him for two years, a decision upheld by the FINA Bureau. A.C. appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that he had used a Ventolin inhaler (containing salbutamol) for asthma since 1985 and believed it was permitted based on a 1991 card from his national federation listing Ventolin as allowed for asthma treatment via inhaler. He did not declare it on the doping control form, assuming it was permitted. The CAS panel examined whether this omission was a doping offense or a technical breach and considered the applicability of the lex mitior principle, which favors applying less severe sanctions if rules have changed. The panel noted that FINA's updated 1995 rules, which were less stringent, had not been communicated to A.C.'s federation in time.
The CAS ruled that A.C.'s failure to declare salbutamol was a technical breach, not a deliberate doping violation, given his good faith reliance on outdated federation information. The panel applied lex mitior, retroactively applying the updated FINA rules. The decision highlighted the need for clear communication from sports federations about banned substances and the importance of athlete intent and federation responsibility in doping cases. The CAS reduced A.C.'s suspension, emphasizing the procedural nature of the violation and his lack of intent to cheat.
The document also outlines the broader legal framework of FINA's anti-doping rules, which strictly prohibit banned substances but allow exceptions for therapeutic use, such as inhaled salbutamol for asthma, with prior notification. The tribunal acknowledged ambiguity in the rules, suggesting clearer definitions and direct references to the IOC's banned substance list. It upheld FINA's finding of liability but deemed the violation technical, not intentional, given A.C.'s legitimate medical use and lack of competitive advantage. The tribunal rejected the two-year suspension, applying lex mitior and emphasizing fairness in unintentional breaches.
The CAS ultimately canceled the sanction, recognizing A.C.'s integrity and attributing the breach to the national federation's failure to inform athletes adequately. The decision underscored the need for precise rules and clear communication to prevent unintentional violations, balancing strict anti-doping enforcement with fairness for athletes acting in good faith. The case illustrates the complexities of doping regulations, particularly regarding therapeutic exemptions, and the role of athlete intent and federation accountability in disciplinary outcomes.