The case centers on professional cyclist Flavia Oliveira, who tested positive for the banned substance oxilofrine during a race in June 2009. Oliveira attributed the positive result to her use of the dietary supplement Hyperdrive 3.0+, which she took to combat fatigue caused by allergy medications. She waived her right to test the "B" sample and accepted the positive result on September 2, 2009. The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) notified her of the violation, and Oliveira accepted a provisional suspension starting September 19, 2009. She declined an initial offer from the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) for a two-year ban and proceeded to arbitration. The American Arbitration Association (AAA) upheld the two-year suspension, citing Oliveira's lack of sufficient diligence in verifying the supplement's contents, despite warning signs such as its marketing as a stimulant and prior FDA warnings about similar products.
Oliveira appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that she had no intent to enhance her performance and that the oxilofrine entered her system unintentionally through the supplement. The CAS panel reviewed the case independently, focusing on whether Oliveira intended to enhance her performance by ingesting oxilofrine. Under Article 10.4 of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), the panel clarified that Oliveira only needed to prove that the ingestion of the specified substance itself was not performance-enhancing, not that the supplement as a whole was free from intent. The panel found her testimony credible, supported by evidence such as her negative tests on days she did not take the supplement and her husband's efforts to identify the substance's source. However, the panel also noted that Oliveira had not exercised reasonable care in verifying the supplement's contents, as she relied on her own research rather than professional advice.
The CAS panel reduced Oliveira's suspension from two years to 18 months, considering her lack of intent to dope, her otherwise clean record, and her limited elite-level experience and lack of formal anti-doping education. The panel emphasized that financial losses or career timing were irrelevant factors in sanction reductions under WADC guidelines. The ineligibility period was set to run from August 30, 2009, the date of her last competition, to February 28, 2011, ensuring she served at least half the period from the date of her provisional suspension acceptance. The panel also disqualified all her competition results from June 19, 2009, through September 19, 2009, in accordance with WADC rules.
The case highlights the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances in their bodies, regardless of intent. It underscores the importance of athlete diligence in supplement use, particularly given the risks of contamination. The ruling also illustrates the CAS's role in ensuring fair and proportionate sanctions, balancing the need for strict enforcement with consideration of individual circumstances. Oliveira's reduced suspension reflects a nuanced approach to fault and negligence, acknowledging her lack of intent while holding her accountable for failing to meet the expected standard of care for professional athletes. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for athletes regarding the risks of supplement use and the necessity of thorough verification to avoid inadvertent doping violations.