The case revolves around Roberto La Barbera, an Italian Paralympic athlete, who appealed a doping violation decision by the International Wheelchair & Amputee Sports Federation (IWAS). La Barbera tested positive for Stanozolol, a prohibited substance, during the IWAS Athletics European Open Championships in June 2010. The substance was confirmed by a WADA-accredited lab, leading to his provisional suspension and a subsequent two-year ban by the IWAS Anti-Doping Committee. La Barbera contested the decision on two grounds: procedural flaws in sample collection and inadvertent contamination through contact with his wife’s dogs. The IWAS Tribunal dismissed both claims, finding no evidence of procedural violations and rejecting his contamination argument due to lack of credible proof.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld the IWAS Tribunal’s decision, emphasizing key legal principles. Athletes bear strict liability for substances in their bodies, and their signature on doping control forms signifies approval of the procedure unless fraud is proven. La Barbera failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish how the substance entered his system or to demonstrate no fault or negligence. His claim of accidental ingestion through nail-biting after handling his dogs’ medication was deemed speculative and unsupported by scientific evidence or witness testimony. The CAS also noted his failure to take basic precautions, such as reading medication labels or washing his hands, which further undermined his case.
The panel ruled out reduced sanctions under Articles 10.4 or 10.5 of the IWAS Code, as Stanozolol is not a specified substance and La Barbera could not prove exceptional circumstances. The CAS confirmed the two-year suspension and disqualification of his competition results, reinforcing the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations. The case highlights the high evidentiary burden on athletes to contest violations and underscores the importance of adhering to anti-doping protocols. Ultimately, the ruling reaffirms the principle of strict liability, holding athletes accountable for prohibited substances in their systems unless they can provide compelling evidence of unintentional ingestion without negligence.