The case revolves around a dispute between the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) and the Czech Swimming Federation (CSF) concerning swimmer Zofie Kvackova's alleged failure to provide whereabouts information for out-of-competition doping tests in 2008. The Czech Anti-Doping Committee reported Kvackova's three filing failures to FINA, but the notifications sent to Kvackova were not submitted as evidence during the proceedings. The CSF Disciplinary Commission imposed a conditional three-month suspension with a six-month probation period, which FINA contested as non-compliant with anti-doping rules. FINA appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) after the CSF failed to respond adequately to its inquiries.
The CAS panel addressed several legal issues, including the retroactive application of the 2009 FINA Anti-Doping Rules, which allowed direct appeals to CAS. The panel clarified that both FINA's anti-doping rules and national regulations apply to athletes, with the substantive rules in force at the time of the violation being decisive unless the principle of "Lex mitior" (favoring the milder penalty) applies. The panel also emphasized that athletes in the National Registered Testing Pool (NRTP) must continue providing whereabouts information unless officially removed, regardless of their national team status.
A critical point was the requirement for formal written warnings to be issued after filing failures. Neither FINA nor the CSF could produce evidence of such warnings, which were necessary to establish a violation. The burden of proof rested with FINA and the CSF to demonstrate the violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body, which they failed to do. Consequently, the panel dismissed FINA's appeal, ruling that the violation was not established due to the lack of proper notifications.
The case highlights the importance of clear communication and adherence to procedural requirements in anti-doping enforcement. The panel underscored that assumptions alone cannot justify sanctions and stressed the need for proper documentation, particularly in cases where athletes might be confused about their obligations. The ruling also noted the procedural improvements later implemented by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 2009 to clarify notification processes. Ultimately, the CAS panel dismissed FINA's appeal, reaffirming the necessity of fair and transparent procedures in anti-doping regulations.