The case involves an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) regarding professional triathlete Timothy Marr, who tested positive for amphetamine after the 2010 Vineman Ironman 70.3 event. The AAA reduced Marr's initial two-year suspension to just over six months, prompting WADA to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The central issue was whether Adderall, the substance Marr ingested, should be classified as a Specified or Non-Specified Stimulant under the World Anti-Doping Code, as this classification affects sanctions. Marr claimed he unknowingly consumed a friend’s beverage containing Adderall, prescribed for Attention Deficit Disorder, without intent to dope.
The CAS panel ruled Adderall a Non-Specified Stimulant, typically warranting stricter penalties, but considered Marr’s lack of intent and minimal fault, as he had no reason to suspect the drink contained a prohibited substance. WADA later sought a reduced suspension of 12 to 14 months, acknowledging Marr’s limited negligence. The panel balanced strict liability principles with Marr’s degree of fault, focusing on whether his conduct met the "no fault or negligence" standard, which could eliminate sanctions, or if minor fault warranted a reduced penalty. The case highlights the complexities of anti-doping enforcement, particularly for inadvertent violations.
The CAS panel set aside the AAA’s decision, ruling Marr violated anti-doping rules under the World Triathlon Corporation’s Anti-Doping Rules (ADR), as athletes are strictly liable for prohibited substances regardless of intent. The panel imposed a 12-month ineligibility period, retroactive to August 13, 2010, ending no later than October 13, 2011. Since Marr had already served a suspension from August 2010 to February 2011, his results from February 23, 2011, through the end of his ineligibility were disqualified, including forfeiture of medals and prizes. WADA was awarded costs, and the panel emphasized the stringent nature of anti-doping regulations, even for unintentional violations.
Marr argued he bore no fault or negligence, as he had no reason to suspect his friend’s drink contained Adderall and was in a non-hostile environment. WADA and the WTC agreed Marr violated the rules but supported a reduced sanction due to his lack of intent. The panel concluded Marr’s fault was minimal, as no reasonable caution could have prevented the accidental ingestion, and imposed a 12-month sanction starting from his provisional suspension date. The decision underscores the balance between strict liability and fairness, recognizing mitigating circumstances while upholding anti-doping rules. The final award dismissed other relief requests and retained the court fee paid by WADA, reinforcing the importance of context in adjudicating inadvertent doping violations.