The case revolves around Jakub Wawrzyniak, a professional football player, who was found to have committed anti-doping rule violations by the Hellenic Football Federation (HFF) after testing positive for Methylhexaneamine, a substance not explicitly listed as prohibited at the time but later deemed similar to Tuaminoheptane, a specified stimulant on the 2008 Prohibited List. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) played a central role in adjudicating the matter, applying principles such as non-retroactivity and lex mitior, which favors the more lenient law if changes occur after the violation. Wawrzyniak underwent multiple doping controls in early 2009, with the first adverse finding reported after a match in April 2009. Initial disciplinary proceedings resulted in a three-month disqualification, later increased to one year by the HFF Appeals Committee. A separate CAS appeal reduced this sanction back to three months. Further analysis revealed Methylhexaneamine in samples from prior controls in February and March 2009, leading to new disciplinary proceedings. The HFF Disciplinary Committee imposed a two-year disqualification, but the Appeals Committee reduced it to one year, citing the player's lack of significant fault since the substance was not explicitly listed at the time.
The CAS panel addressed whether the violations should be treated as a single first violation or multiple offenses. Under Article 52.5 of the 2009 FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR), a second violation only applies if the player commits it after receiving notice of the first violation. Since the prior violations were discovered later but occurred earlier, they were treated as a single first violation. Additionally, Article 52.6 of the FIFA ADR allowed for an additional sanction unless the player voluntarily admitted the earlier violation promptly after being charged. Wawrzyniak admitted to using a slimming product, Tight Extreme, containing Methylhexaneamine, but argued he had checked its ingredients and found no prohibited substances listed at the time. He also contested the retroactive application of anti-doping rules, as the substance was only officially prohibited from March 30, 2009, while his violations occurred earlier.
The CAS ultimately upheld the one-year ineligibility period imposed by the HFF Appeals Committee, finding it proportionate given the circumstances. The decision emphasized that Methylhexaneamine, while not explicitly prohibited, shared similarities with a listed substance, justifying the violation. The case highlights the application of anti-doping regulations, the principle of non-retroactivity, and the importance of timely notification in determining sanctions for multiple violations. The Panel also considered the principle of ne bis in idem (no double jeopardy), as a prior CAS decision had already addressed part of the violation. The appeal was granted, and the HFF's decision was set aside, with the CAS upholding the appeal against the HFF's earlier rulings. The case underscores the complexities of doping regulations, the significance of voluntary admissions, and the need for consistency in assessing sanctions. The Panel's approach reflected established legal principles to ensure fairness and procedural integrity in anti-doping cases.