The case involves Brazilian judoka Victor Penalber, who tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide, a diuretic and masking agent, during the 2008 World Judo Team Championships. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed a decision by the Brazilian Supreme Court of Sports Justice of Judo, which had imposed a one-year ineligibility period, arguing for a stricter two-year sanction under the International Judo Federation (IJF) Anti-Doping Rules. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) examined the case, applying the principle of lex mitior, which allows the use of more lenient rules if they are in effect at the time of the proceedings. The panel determined that the 2009 WADA Prohibited List, which classified Furosemide as a specified substance, should apply as it was more favorable to the athlete than the 2008 list.
Under the IJF Anti-Doping Rules, the presence of a prohibited substance in an athlete’s sample constitutes a violation regardless of intent, fault, or negligence, adhering to the strict liability principle. For a first violation involving a specified substance like Furosemide, the standard sanction is a two-year ineligibility period unless the athlete can prove how the substance entered their body. Penalber failed to provide such evidence, despite claiming the substance might have entered his system unintentionally during an intense diet. The panel rejected his arguments, including his claim of youth and inexperience, noting that as a multiple national and continental champion by 2006, he was neither inexperienced nor a minor at the time of the violation.
The CAS upheld WADA’s appeal, overturning the Brazilian court’s decision and imposing a two-year ineligibility period on Penalber, effective from the date of the CAS award. The panel also ordered the disqualification of all competitive results obtained by Penalber from the date of the violation until the start of his suspension, including forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes. The ruling reaffirmed the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and emphasized the athlete’s responsibility to ensure no prohibited substances enter their system.
The case highlights key procedural aspects of anti-doping appeals, including jurisdiction, admissibility, and the application of the lex mitior principle. It underscores the importance of adhering to WADA’s Prohibited List and the consequences of failing to meet the burden of proof in doping cases. The decision serves as a reminder of the stringent enforcement of anti-doping rules in international sports, reinforcing the necessity for athletes to provide credible evidence when seeking reduced sanctions. The panel’s ruling dismissed all other motions, upholding the appeal by WADA and ensuring the integrity of anti-doping regulations.