The case revolves around Elena Perotto, an amateur cyclist from Italy, who was found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation after testing positive for two prohibited substances, 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone, during a cycling event in October 2008. These substances, classified as endogenous anabolic androgenic steroids under the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List, were detected in her sample, leading to charges under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) and the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) Anti-Doping Rules. Perotto did not possess a Therapeutic Use Exemption, and her explanations for the presence of the substances—such as possible contamination from medications or supplements—were deemed insufficient by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel.
The case highlighted the distinction between "ineligibility" and "disqualification" as sanctions. Since Perotto was not a licensed member of an Italian sports federation, the only applicable sanction was ineligibility ("inibizione"), which barred her from participating in CONI-related activities. The CAS panel upheld a two-year ineligibility period, the standard sanction for a first-time violation, as Perotto failed to prove how the prohibited substances entered her body. The Italian National Anti-Doping Tribunal (TNA) had initially reduced the sanction to one year, citing mitigating factors such as her lack of awareness about reporting medications and her cooperation during the hearing. However, WADA appealed this decision, arguing for strict adherence to harmonized sanctions under the WADC.
The CAS panel ultimately ruled in favor of WADA, reinstating the two-year ineligibility period and disqualifying Perotto's competitive results from October 2008 onward. The decision emphasized the principle of strict liability in anti-doping regulations, which holds athletes responsible for any prohibited substances in their bodies regardless of intent. Perotto's personal circumstances, including financial constraints and psychological distress, were considered insufficient to justify a reduced sanction. The panel also clarified that, for non-affiliated athletes like Perotto, disqualification from competitions is not applicable, but ineligibility from sports-related activities remains enforceable.
The case underscores the importance of uniform anti-doping standards and the need for athletes to provide clear and substantiated explanations for prohibited substances in their systems. It also highlights the jurisdictional limits of sanctions based on an athlete's affiliation status, reinforcing the integrity of anti-doping regulations. The final ruling by CAS upheld the strict liability principle and the necessity for athletes to demonstrate how prohibited substances entered their bodies to qualify for reduced sanctions, ensuring consistency in the enforcement of anti-doping measures.