The case revolves around a swimmer, H., who contested a three-month suspension imposed by the International Swimming Federation (FINA) for a doping violation involving cannabinoids. The suspension followed an unannounced doping control on 15 May 1998, which detected cannabinoids in H.'s samples. H. argued that cannabinoids were not prohibited under the IOC Medical Code and that unannounced testing for such substances was not permitted under FINA's rules. The FINA Doping Panel rejected these claims, asserting that cannabinoids were banned under FINA's Doping Control Rules (DC) and that unannounced testing could be conducted for any prohibited substance. H. appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), contending that the IOC Medical Code did not classify cannabinoids as prohibited and that FINA had failed to adequately inform athletes about the scope of out-of-competition testing. The CAS panel, composed of Jan Paulsson, Michael Beloff, and Denis Oswald, dismissed H.'s arguments. It clarified that the IOC Medical Code applied only to Olympic competitions unless voluntarily adopted by a federation. FINA had not fully adopted the Medical Code but had incorporated it into its guidelines, with its DC rules taking precedence. The panel noted that FINA's DC rules explicitly banned cannabinoids, with sanctions ranging up to lifetime expulsion for repeat offenses.
The panel also rejected H.'s procedural argument regarding unannounced testing, interpreting FINA Rule DC 6.3 to allow testing for any banned substance, not just those specifically highlighted. The panel emphasized that H. had been previously warned after testing positive for marijuana in 1996 and could not claim ignorance of the rules. H. further argued that the IOC Medical Code’s list of prohibited substances for out-of-competition testing excluded marijuana, but the panel dismissed this, referencing FINA's authority. H. also challenged the timing of his suspension, suggesting it should have started from the date of sample collection, but the panel found this unpersuasive, especially given H.'s use of local courts to circumvent the suspension.
H. urged the panel to disregard moral judgments about marijuana use and focus on legal principles, citing a prior case (R. case) where CAS clarified it could not impose sanctions without explicit rules. However, the panel found that FINA had a clear prohibition and legal basis for the sanction. H.'s reliance on alleged oral assurances that cannabinoids were not targeted in testing was also dismissed, with the panel stressing adherence to written rules. Ultimately, the panel upheld FINA's decision, ordering H. to pay costs of CHF 10,000 plus interest due to his unmeritorious challenge and evasion of sanctions. The panel also nullified any results H. achieved during his suspension. The decision underscores the importance of clear rules and athlete awareness in anti-doping enforcement, as well as the necessity of adhering to established dispute resolution mechanisms in sports governance.