The case involves Raphael Menezes Dos Santos, a Brazilian triathlete, who appealed a two-year ineligibility sanction imposed by the International Triathlon Union (ITU) after testing positive for Clenbuterol, a prohibited substance. The ITU's Anti-Doping Hearing Panel issued the sanction following a written hearing, which Menezes contested, arguing procedural unfairness and claiming the substance entered his system through contaminated meat. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reviewed the case, addressing key issues such as the athlete's right to a fair hearing, procedural defects, and the plausibility of meat contamination as the source of Clenbuterol. The CAS highlighted that athletes must be informed of their right to an oral hearing if federation regulations permit it, especially if the federation typically conducts documentary hearings. The panel criticized the ITU's practice of having the first-instance panel president act as legal counsel in the appeal and calling a panel member as an expert witness, as it compromised the appearance of impartiality. However, the CAS noted that its de novo appellate procedure could remedy such procedural defects from the initial hearing.
Regarding the source of Clenbuterol, Menezes argued that his diet in Mexico, which included chicken and meat sauce, led to contamination. Expert testimony indicated no documented cases of Clenbuterol contamination from chicken, and the levels found in Menezes' system would require an implausibly large consumption of beef, which he did not claim to have eaten. The athlete's witnesses, including a gastroenterologist, supported the contamination theory but admitted no evidence linked Clenbuterol to chicken. The panel found Menezes failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that meat contamination caused the adverse finding. The ITU's anti-doping procedures were defended as standard and compliant with WADA regulations, with Menezes having signed the control form without objections. Expert witnesses emphasized the performance-enhancing effects of Clenbuterol and the improbability of such high levels resulting from dietary sources.
The legal framework for the case was established under the ITU Constitution and Anti-Doping Rules, which grant CAS jurisdiction over such disputes. The appeal was deemed admissible as it was filed within the stipulated 21-day period. The Panel had full authority to review the facts and law, with the power to uphold, modify, or annul the decision. The case underscores the challenges of distinguishing between intentional doping and accidental contamination, as well as the stringent standards applied in anti-doping regulations. The ITU Rules establish strict liability, meaning athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances found in their bodies, regardless of intent. Menezes attempted to argue that deviations in the doping control procedure could have caused the adverse finding, but the panel found no supporting evidence.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the two-year sanction, concluding the procedural defects at the initial hearing were cured by the de novo review and that Menezes did not sufficiently demonstrate the source of the prohibited substance. The decision underscores the importance of fair hearing procedures and the high burden of proof athletes face when claiming inadvertent doping violations. The ruling affirms the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and the difficulty of proving unintentional ingestion of prohibited substances. The CAS dismissed Menezes' appeal, confirming the two-year suspension and rejecting all other relief requests.