The case involves four young Chinese swimmers, N., J., Y., and W., who were suspended for two years by FINA after testing positive for Triamterene, a banned diuretic, during an unannounced doping control in January 1998. The swimmers, all under 20 years old and members of the China Swim Team, had previously tested negative in multiple competitions. The positive results were confirmed by both "A" and "B" samples analyzed at an IOC-accredited laboratory in Sydney, Australia, which detected very low levels of Triamterene (5-10 ng/ml). The swimmers denied intentional doping, attributing the results to Actovegin, a nutritional supplement they had taken under their coaches' guidance. Actovegin, a protein-free calf-blood extract, had been cleared by the China Dope Testing Centre in 1996 as free of banned substances. The swimmers argued that if Actovegin contained Triamterene, it was unintentional and not performance-enhancing.
FINA initially suspended the swimmers but later lifted the suspensions pending further investigation. The swimmers requested tests to determine if Actovegin could produce false positives, while FINA insisted on testing whether Actovegin contained the banned substance. The case raised key legal principles, including the burden of proof, which rested with FINA to establish the doping offense to a high standard of proof, though not as stringent as in criminal cases. Once the presence of a prohibited substance was confirmed, the burden shifted to the athletes to justify why the maximum sanction should not apply. The case also highlighted the strict liability nature of doping offenses, where intent is irrelevant to establishing guilt but may influence sanctions.
The swimmers' defense relied on the possibility of Actovegin being the source of the positive test, supported by inconclusive analyses from Chinese laboratories. The manufacturer of Actovegin denied it contained Triamterene. FINA considered adjourning the hearing for independent verification but also attempted to negotiate a reduced suspension, which the swimmers rejected. The case underscores the complexities of doping disputes, particularly when athletes claim inadvertent ingestion of banned substances through supplements. The final decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld the principles of strict liability and the shifting burden of proof, emphasizing the need for rigorous evidence to support athletes' claims of unintentional doping.
The CAS panel reviewed the case under FINA’s doping control rules and Swiss law, assessing the evidence anew. The hearing was conducted under strict time constraints due to the upcoming Asian Games, but both parties had ample opportunity to present their cases. The panel found no procedural defects compromising fairness. The swimmers challenged the results, claiming potential sample contamination and procedural violations, but the panel found no evidence supporting these claims. The presence of Triamterene metabolites in the "B" samples reinforced the conclusion that the banned substance was indeed present. The swimmers' argument that Actovegin might have contained Triamterene was dismissed due to lack of evidence, as tests on Actovegin tablets did not detect the substance.
The panel concluded that the anti-doping violation was properly established, upholding the two-year suspension. The ruling emphasized the strict liability principle, where athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances in their samples, regardless of intent. While the panel acknowledged that lack of intent could be a mitigating factor in other circumstances, the swimmers failed to provide compelling proof of innocence. The case highlights the challenges of proving unintentional ingestion and the rigorous standards applied in anti-doping investigations, reinforcing the balance between enforcing anti-doping rules and protecting athletes' rights.