The case CAS 2009/A/1915 involves an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the Polish Wrestling Federation (PWF) regarding two wrestlers, Kamil Blonski and Wojciech Zieziulewicz, who tested positive for methyltestosterone, a prohibited substance. The athletes claimed they unknowingly ingested the substance through contaminated nutritional supplements provided by their club. The PWF initially imposed a one-year suspension, citing no significant fault or negligence under Article 10.5.2 of the WADA Code (WADC). WADA appealed, arguing the athletes failed to meet the high standard of responsibility required to avoid liability for doping violations.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel examined the applicability of the WADA Code, the principle of proportionality, and the athletes' duty of care. The panel confirmed that the WADC applies through the incorporation of anti-doping rules by international and national federations. The principle of proportionality, codified in Article 10.5 of the WADC, allows for reduced sanctions in exceptional cases but does not permit further leniency beyond the Code's provisions. The panel emphasized the high standard of responsibility athletes bear regarding nutritional supplements, which are known to be frequently contaminated with undeclared prohibited substances. Athletes must conduct thorough investigations beyond checking product labels or websites, as reliance on club personnel or manufacturers does not absolve them of personal responsibility.
The wrestlers in this case failed to exercise sufficient due diligence, as they trusted oral assurances from club staff and did not independently verify the supplements' safety. The PWF’s Disciplinary Arbitration Commission (DAC) had upheld the one-year suspension, concluding the athletes acted without knowledge or negligence. However, WADA contested this, asserting the athletes did not meet the criteria for no significant fault or negligence. The CAS panel reviewed written submissions from both parties, as no hearing was held, and deliberated via correspondence and a conference call. Although the athletes did not file independent submissions, their signed statements denying awareness of the prohibited substances were considered.
Ultimately, the panel found that the athletes did not fulfill their duty of care, as they relied solely on club personnel and did not take adequate steps to verify the supplements. The decision underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, holding athletes accountable for any prohibited substances in their bodies, regardless of intent. The case reinforces the necessity for athletes to exercise extreme caution with nutritional supplements and highlights the limited scope for leniency under the WADC. The panel’s ruling aligns with WADA’s position, emphasizing the importance of rigorous adherence to anti-doping rules to maintain fair competition.
The panel confirmed its jurisdiction under the CAS Code, noting that WADA had exhausted internal remedies by appealing PWF’s decision to its DAC. The applicable law was determined to be the statutes and regulations of FILA (International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles), which incorporate the WADC. The substantive anti-doping rules in effect at the time of the alleged violation (December 17, 2008) were applied, while procedural matters followed current rules. The panel found WADA’s appeal admissible, as it was filed within the 21-day deadline after receiving PWF’s decision.
The athletes were found to have committed an anti-doping violation under Article 2.1 of the 2008 Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) due to the presence of Methyltestosterone in their samples. The substance was traced to a supplement called "Jungle Warfare," which the athletes claimed they took without intent to enhance performance. However, the panel found this claim unpersuasive, as the supplement promised increased strength, and intent is irrelevant under the rules. The standard sanction for a first violation is a two-year ineligibility period, but this can be reduced to one year if the athletes prove no significant fault or negligence under Article 10.5.2 of the ADR.
The panel examined whether the athletes bore no significant fault or negligence. While they identified the source of the prohibited substance, the panel referenced the WADC 2003 comments, which state that contamination from supplements does not automatically absolve athletes of responsibility. The principle of proportionality, codified in the WADC, allows for reduced sanctions in exceptional cases but does not override the specific provisions of the ADR. The panel concluded that the circumstances did not warrant a reduction, as the