The case involves Mariana Ohata, an international triathlon athlete, who appealed a decision by the International Triathlon Union (ITU) regarding a doping violation. The ITU imposed a six-year ineligibility period after her urine sample tested positive for furosemide, a prohibited substance under the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List. This was her second doping violation, the first occurring in 2002, which resulted in a 60-day suspension. The ITU's Doping Hearing Panel found her negligent and imposed the sanction under its Anti-Doping Rules, considering her prior violation.
Ohata contested the decision, arguing procedural issues, including the lack of signatures on the ITU's decision and questioning the impartiality and independence of the hearing panel. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) addressed these concerns, ruling that the ITU's decision did not require signatures to be valid, as long as it was written and reasoned. The CAS also clarified that while "independence" refers to objective relationships, "impartiality" is subjective, relating to potential bias. The CAS upheld the ITU's decision, confirming that prior violations could be considered in multiple infraction cases if they fell within the stipulated deadlines.
Ohata further challenged the laboratory procedures, but the CAS noted that the 2009 International Standards for Laboratories no longer required different analysts for the A and B sample analyses. The CAS panel, composed of Corinne Schmidhauser, Carole Barbey, and Ulrich Haas, ultimately dismissed Ohata's appeal, maintaining the six-year ineligibility period. The ruling emphasized strict adherence to anti-doping regulations and reinforced the principle that athletes bear responsibility for substances found in their systems, absent compelling evidence to the contrary.
The case highlights the procedural rigor of CAS arbitrations and the legal arguments typically raised in anti-doping disputes, including jurisdiction, timeliness, and the merits of sanctions imposed by sports governing bodies. The Panel’s final decision underscored the importance of procedural adherence in anti-doping disputes and the role of CAS in resolving such conflicts. The athlete's claims of inadvertent consumption through contaminated supplements or natural tea were deemed speculative and unsupported by evidence. The Panel also referenced expert testimony indicating that furosemide's masking potential could not be ruled out based solely on urine concentration levels.
Ultimately, the Panel upheld the violation and rejected the athlete's arguments for a reduced sanction, emphasizing that mere allegations without corroborating evidence were insufficient to meet the required burden of proof. The case underscores the strict application of anti-doping regulations and the necessity for athletes to provide substantive evidence when contesting violations or seeking reduced sanctions. The appeal was dismissed, and the original decision by the ITU Doping Hearing Panel was confirmed. The Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled against the athlete's request to annul or reduce the ineligibility period, rejecting all other motions and prayers for relief.