The case involves an appeal by swimmer B. against a four-year suspension imposed by the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) for alleged doping violations. The suspension was based on findings that B. had manipulated her urine sample to conceal banned substances, violating FINA's anti-doping rules. B. appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which conducted a full rehearing of the evidence. The CAS panel appointed an expert to examine the sample container for tampering, but no evidence was found. Witnesses, including the sampling officers (Mr. and Mrs. G.), testified that B. was briefly out of sight during the sample collection and wore loose clothing that could have concealed manipulation. The panel upheld FINA's decision, emphasizing the high standard of proof required for doping violations, though not as stringent as the criminal standard.
The sampling process was detailed, with B. providing two urine samples under observation. The officers noted a sweet, alcoholic odor but did not immediately report it, later documenting it in their mission summary. The samples were securely stored and shipped to a laboratory, which confirmed adulteration, including high alcohol concentration and a whisky-like odor. B. was notified of the violation, and a secondary analysis confirmed the findings. A FINA Doping Panel hearing concluded B. had committed a doping offense, resulting in her suspension.
B. raised procedural concerns, including the chain of custody and potential third-party manipulation, but the CAS panel dismissed these arguments. It found no evidence of tampering during storage or transport and upheld the laboratory's handling of the samples. The panel rejected B.'s claim that the burden of proof required eliminating all other possibilities, stating FINA only needed to meet a "comfortable satisfaction" standard. The panel also dismissed technical arguments about the sample container, noting no credible evidence of undetected tampering.
The CAS panel affirmed FINA's authority to delegate testing to third parties like IDTM and upheld the legitimacy of unannounced out-of-competition testing. It concluded that B.'s arguments were speculative and insufficient to overturn the doping violation ruling. The panel emphasized the importance of strict anti-doping enforcement to maintain sports integrity. B.'s appeal was dismissed, and the four-year suspension was upheld, with the CAS declining to address claims for monetary relief. The case underscores the rigorous standards applied in doping disputes and the challenges athletes face in contesting such rulings. The decision highlights the balance between procedural fairness and the need for effective anti-doping measures in competitive sports.