The case involves an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) concerning two professional basketball players, Ronaldo Sylvester Slay and Guillermo Jose Diaz Gonzalez, who were accused of violating anti-doping rules during a Serie A game in Teramo, Italy, on November 15, 2008. The dispute arose when the players left the doping control station to take a shower before completing sample collection, returning approximately 23 minutes later. CONI initially imposed a one-month ineligibility sanction, but WADA appealed, seeking a two-year ban, arguing the players had refused or failed to submit to doping control. The players defended their actions, claiming they were not clearly instructed to remain at the station, faced language barriers, and found the station’s conditions unsuitable for showering, with cold water and unsafe conditions. Their team physician supported this account.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) examined whether the players’ actions constituted a refusal or evasion of doping control. The panel found inconsistencies in the testimonies of doping control officials regarding whether the players were explicitly told not to leave and whether language barriers hindered communication. The players argued they were unaware of the rules, a point supported by their coach and a representative from the Italian basketball players’ association, who testified that athletes were not routinely informed about sample collection procedures. The panel concluded that WADA failed to meet the required standard of proof ("comfortable satisfaction") to demonstrate a violation, as the evidence did not establish that the players unequivocally understood the consequences of leaving.
The CAS upheld the players’ defense, ruling their departure did not amount to a refusal or evasion under anti-doping regulations. The decision emphasized the importance of clear communication and procedural clarity in doping control to ensure athletes comprehend their obligations. WADA’s appeal was dismissed, and the initial one-month sanction was effectively set aside, as the panel found no violation had occurred. The case highlighted discrepancies in witness testimonies, communication challenges, and the need for proper athlete education on anti-doping procedures to prevent similar disputes. The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction under Article R47 of the CAS Code, as CONI and the Italian Basketball Federation’s rules allowed for such appeals, and WADA had exhausted prior legal remedies. The applicable law was the CONI Anti-Doping Rules in force at the time of the incident.
Ultimately, the panel found no evidence of evasion, noting the players returned promptly when directed, submitted to testing, and produced negative results. Their absence was for a shower in an accessible changing room, with no intent to avoid testing. The Second Respondent had even begun sample collection before leaving, further undermining WADA’s claim. The CAS rejected all relief sought by WADA and confirmed the original decision, underscoring the necessity for transparent and unambiguous instructions in anti-doping enforcement.