The case involves Jakub Wawrzyniak, a Polish professional football player, who appealed against a decision by the Hellenic Football Federation (HFF) regarding an anti-doping rule violation. The dispute arose after Wawrzyniak tested positive for Methylhexaneamine following a match in April 2009. Initially, the Disciplinary Committee of the Greek Super League imposed a three-month disqualification, citing that the substance was taken for weight loss rather than performance enhancement. However, the HFF Appeals Committee later increased the penalty to a one-year disqualification, prompting Wawrzyniak to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel addressed several key legal principles, including the principle of tempus regit actum, meaning the law in force at the time of the violation governs the case, unless the lex mitior principle (favoring a more lenient law) applies. The panel examined the classification of Methylhexaneamine as a prohibited substance, noting that WADA’s list is open and includes all stimulants not under monitoring, even if not explicitly named at the time. They emphasized that similarity to prohibited substances must meet at least two of three criteria: performance enhancement, health risk, or violation of the spirit of sport. The panel concluded that Methylhexaneamine was a prohibited substance and a specified substance under the applicable rules, meaning the player could be subject to a reduced sanction if certain conditions were met.
Wawrzyniak argued that he had taken the substance unknowingly as part of a weight-loss supplement recommended by a teammate, without medical supervision. However, the panel rejected this defense, stating that athletes bear responsibility for substances they ingest, regardless of misinformation from medical personnel. They also dismissed his claim of no significant fault or negligence, as he failed to verify the substance’s status. The panel applied the balance of probability standard, requiring the athlete to prove his innocence was more likely than not.
The panel reviewed the proportionality of the one-year suspension, noting that it generally follows a strict approach when reviewing disciplinary decisions, intervening only if the sanction is evidently and grossly disproportionate to the offense. They found the one-year suspension disproportionate because it was based on a more serious finding by the Appeals Committee, which concluded that the player did not qualify for a reduced sanction for specified substances. The CAS panel disagreed, determining that the player did qualify for the reduced sanction, aligning with the original decision of the Disciplinary Committee. Consequently, the panel reduced the suspension to three months, starting from the date of the player's provisional suspension (5 April 2009).
The ruling underscores the importance of athlete diligence in verifying substances and the rigorous standards applied in anti-doping regulations. It also highlights the principle that disciplinary sanctions must be proportionate to the offense and that appellate bodies should intervene only in cases of clear disproportionality. The case demonstrates the complexities of doping regulations, particularly regarding substances not explicitly listed but deemed similar to banned compounds, and the balance between strict anti-doping enforcement and fairness in cases of genuine negligence. The final decision upheld the reduced three-month suspension, ensuring a fair outcome based on the specific circumstances of the case.