The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding an anti-doping violation by Colombian athlete Johanna Trivino-Urrutia. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) appealed against the Colombian Athletics Federation (CAF) after Trivino-Urrutia tested positive for stanozolol, a banned substance, during the 54th Colombian Senior Championship in May 2009. The CAS panel addressed key legal and procedural issues, emphasizing the obligation of IAAF members, including national federations like the CAF, to comply with anti-doping regulations. The panel highlighted procedural fairness, noting the athlete had the opportunity to defend herself despite delays in sample transportation.
A critical issue was the ten-day delay in delivering the urine sample to the laboratory, which the panel deemed unacceptable under International Standards for Laboratories (ISL). The sample was stored in a secure container in the doping control officer’s car and later in a dedicated fridge at his apartment until his wife, a trained doping control assistant, delivered it. The laboratory confirmed the sample’s integrity upon receipt and detected stanozolol in the A-sample. The athlete did not request a B-sample analysis. The CAF Disciplinary Commission initially imposed a two-year ban, but the General Disciplinary Commission (GDC) later overturned this decision, citing breaches in the chain of custody. The IAAF appealed to CAS, arguing the GDC’s decision was erroneous and seeking reinstatement of the ban.
The CAS panel examined jurisdictional issues, confirming its authority over the case as the CAF, an IAAF member, was bound by IAAF rules. The panel also determined Trivino-Urrutia was a national-level athlete, making the case subject to CAS review after national appeals were exhausted. The panel upheld the IAAF’s appeal, finding the athlete strictly liable for the prohibited substance in her sample. While the delay in sample transportation was criticized, the panel concluded it did not cause the adverse finding, as there was no evidence of tampering or manipulation. The athlete failed to provide a credible explanation for the presence of stanozolol or demonstrate lack of fault.
The CAS imposed a two-year ineligibility period, starting from the award’s notification, with credit for provisional suspensions served. All competitive results from the date of the sample collection were disqualified, leading to forfeiture of titles, awards, and prizes. The decision underscored the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and the importance of adhering to procedural standards. The case highlights the consequences of doping violations and the role of international oversight in ensuring consistent enforcement of anti-doping rules. The panel’s ruling reinforced the integrity of anti-doping processes and the seriousness of violations, even in the absence of proven intent.