The case revolves around Gregory Berrios, a Puerto Rican volleyball player, who tested positive for Sibutramine, a prohibited stimulant, during the 2010 V Men’s Pan American Cup. The substance was found in a weight-loss product called "Fatloss Slimming Beauty," which Berrios admitted taking to aid his recovery after a knee injury. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the initial sanction imposed by the Fédération Internationale de Volleyball (FIVB), arguing it was too lenient. Berrios claimed he unknowingly ingested the banned substance, as the product was purchased from Freshmart, a natural products store he trusted, and its packaging did not disclose the presence of Sibutramine. He conducted an internet search of the ingredients but found no indication of prohibited substances. Independent testing later confirmed the presence of Sibutramine in the product.
Under the WADA Code, Sibutramine is classified as a Specified Substance, allowing for reduced sanctions if the athlete proves the substance was ingested unintentionally and without intent to enhance performance. Berrios argued he met these criteria, emphasizing his lack of doping intent and his reliance on the store’s reputation. The FIVB initially suspended him for two years but reduced it to three months, accepting his explanation. WADA appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking a stricter penalty. During proceedings, WADA modified its request to a one-year suspension, acknowledging Berrios' lack of intent but contesting his degree of fault.
The CAS panel emphasized the principle of strict liability, holding athletes responsible for substances in their bodies regardless of intent. It found Berrios negligent for failing to consult medical staff or thoroughly verify the product’s contents, especially given the known risks of contamination in supplements. While the panel accepted that Berrios did not intend to cheat, it ruled his lack of due care warranted a one-year suspension, balancing fairness with the need for consistent anti-doping enforcement. The suspension was backdated to the sample collection date, May 27, 2010, reflecting the timeline of the violation.
The decision underscores the importance of athlete vigilance in avoiding prohibited substances, even when using seemingly harmless products. It reinforces WADA’s stance on personal accountability and the need for athletes to exercise extreme caution with supplements and weight-loss aids. The ruling aligns with broader efforts to maintain integrity in sports through uniform anti-doping standards, ensuring fairness and proportionality in sanctions. The case serves as a cautionary tale for athletes to verify product safety and adhere to strict compliance with anti-doping regulations.