The case centers on an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the International Federation of Bodybuilding and Fitness (IFBB) regarding Australian bodybuilder Kelli Johnson. Johnson was found in possession of prohibited substances, testosterone and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), by Australian customs in September 2007. The IFBB Hearing Panel initially imposed a six-month ineligibility period, reduced from the standard two-year sanction, citing mitigating circumstances under the IFBB Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). WADA appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the reduction was unjustified.
The CAS panel addressed several key issues, including the applicability of different versions of the IFBB ADR. While WADA argued that the 2009 ADR should apply due to alleged continuous use of prohibited substances by Johnson from 2007 to 2009, the panel determined that the 2007 violation should be assessed under the rules in effect at that time. The panel clarified that substantive anti-doping rules were materially consistent across the 2006, 2008, and 2009 versions, though procedural rules from the 2009 ADR applied to the appeal. The panel also rejected WADA’s attempt to introduce new allegations not originally considered by the IFBB, emphasizing the appeal must focus on the specific facts and violations initially charged.
Regarding the reduction of sanctions, the panel underscored the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations. It ruled that Johnson failed to meet the high burden of proving "no significant fault or negligence," as her reliance on a doctor’s prescription without verifying the substances herself did not absolve her of responsibility. Her admissions of doping, made only after the substances were discovered, were not considered mitigating factors. The panel found the IFBB’s decision to reduce the sanction flawed, as it improperly applied provisions from the 2009 ADR and lacked valid justification for leniency.
The panel also considered procedural delays, noting a 15-month gap between the violation and the hearing, followed by further delays in WADA receiving case documents. These delays, not attributable to Johnson, were deemed relevant in determining the sanction’s start date. The panel ruled that Johnson should receive credit for the six-month ineligibility already served and that the remaining 18 months should be backdated to commence six months before the decision’s publication. Additionally, all competitive results from September 7, 2008, onward were disqualified, including forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes.
Ultimately, the CAS panel upheld WADA’s appeal, imposing a two-year ineligibility period on Johnson, with adjustments for procedural delays. The decision reinforces the strict liability principle and the limited circumstances under which sanctions may be reduced, emphasizing the importance of consistent application of anti-doping rules to maintain integrity in sports. The case highlights the complexities of anti-doping regulations and the role of WADA in ensuring uniform enforcement across international sports federations.