The case of Franchon Crews v. the International Boxing Association (AIBA) centered on a doping violation involving the boxer's positive test for phentermine, a prohibited substance, during the 2008 Pan-American Games. The initial proceedings conducted by AIBA's Anti-Doping Hearing Panel were flawed due to procedural irregularities, including the panel's improper constitution, as some members had prior involvement in the case or shared the athlete's nationality, violating AIBA's independence standards. This rendered the original decision invalid. However, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) treated the appeal as a de novo hearing, allowing a complete reconsideration of the case to rectify these procedural defects.
Crews argued that she had inadvertently consumed phentermine through a sports drink provided by an unknown person, claiming no significant fault or negligence. CAS rejected this argument, emphasizing that elite athletes must exercise extreme caution regarding substances they ingest. By accepting and consuming an unverified drink without proper inquiry, Crews demonstrated negligence, failing to meet the expected standard of care for an international-level athlete. Consequently, CAS denied her request for a reduced sanction.
The case also addressed delays in the disciplinary process, with Crews contending that AIBA's handling of the matter was untimely and prejudicial. While CAS acknowledged the delays, it ruled that they did not harm Crews' case, as the two-year ineligibility period was calculated from the date of the sample collection. The panel stressed that procedural delays should not allow athletes to evade consequences for doping violations, as this would undermine the integrity of anti-doping efforts and unfairly advantage violators over clean competitors.
Ultimately, CAS upheld the two-year suspension, reinforcing the importance of strict adherence to anti-doping regulations and athlete accountability. The decision highlighted that procedural flaws in initial hearings could be remedied through a de novo review, ensuring fairness while maintaining the enforcement of anti-doping rules. The ruling also clarified that delays, unless proven prejudicial, do not invalidate sanctions for doping offenses. The case underscored the necessity for governing bodies like AIBA to conduct timely and impartial proceedings to uphold both the rights of athletes and the credibility of anti-doping systems. The final outcome confirmed the original sanction, dismissing all further claims for relief.