The case involves three Russian swimmers, P., M., and K., who were sanctioned by the International Swimming Federation (FINA) after testing positive for methandienone, a banned steroid, during an out-of-competition doping control on October 18, 1997. Under FINA's regulations, the presence of a prohibited substance automatically constitutes a doping violation, leading to a minimum four-year suspension and the annulment of results from competitions held six months prior to the violation. The athletes, members of Russia’s national swimming team, claimed they unknowingly consumed the substance through a cake spiked by another swimmer, T., who allegedly sought revenge after being excluded from a training camp. T. admitted to crushing methandienone pills into cream and serving the cake at a farewell party attended by the athletes. A Russian criminal investigation did not prosecute T., but a civil court ordered her to pay moral damages to the athletes.
During FINA’s doping hearing, the athletes argued they had no knowledge of ingesting the banned substance. However, FINA’s Doping Panel imposed a two-year suspension, citing the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, which places the burden of proof on athletes to demonstrate their lack of fault. The athletes appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), contesting the decision and arguing that the Commission failed to consider mitigating circumstances, such as their clean records and the implausibility of knowingly using a banned substance while participating in tests for another performance-enhancing substance, ecdistenum. They also criticized the lack of expert analysis on the detectability of methandienone in urine after two weeks.
FINA defended its decision, emphasizing precedents that establish a presumption of guilt in doping cases and noting that the two-year suspension was lenient compared to the standard four-year penalty for first-time offenses involving anabolic steroids. An expert confirmed that methandienone is a performance-enhancing drug with no detectable taste, making it possible for the athletes to have been unknowingly doped. However, inconsistencies in T.’s testimony and the absence of evidence supporting the athletes’ claims weakened their case. The CAS upheld FINA’s decision, ruling that the athletes failed to meet the burden of proof required to overturn the doping violation. The court found their arguments insufficient to demonstrate lack of fault or negligence, particularly given the presence of furosemide, a masking agent, in one athlete’s sample.
The case highlights the challenges of balancing strict anti-doping enforcement with fairness, especially when athletes claim unintentional ingestion. The CAS reaffirmed the strict liability principle, underscoring that athletes must ensure no prohibited substances enter their bodies, regardless of intent. The final decision emphasized the importance of clear regulatory language and the need for athletes to understand their obligations under anti-doping rules. The two-year suspension was deemed proportionate, considering the athletes’ age, career impact, and first-time offense. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sanction upheld, reinforcing the integrity of anti-doping regulations and the difficulty of contesting sanctions without compelling evidence. The case underscores the complexities of doping adjudication, where scientific evidence, regulatory clarity, and principles of fairness must be carefully balanced.