The case revolves around a doping violation by V., a young Swiss boxer who tested positive for nicéthamide and its metabolite after winning the Swiss boxing championship in the cadet category on March 6, 2011. The substance was detected in his urine sample by the Swiss Laboratory for Doping Analysis, and V. did not contest the results. During disciplinary proceedings, it was revealed that V. had ingested a tablet of Gly-Coramin, believing it to be glucose, which was given to him by his trainer, J. The trainer claimed to have consulted a doctor and assured V. that the substance posed no doping risk. The Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic initially ruled that while V. had technically violated anti-doping rules, he bore no fault or negligence due to his good faith reliance on his trainer’s instructions. As a result, no suspension or fine was imposed, but his championship title, medal, and prizes were revoked under automatic disqualification rules.
Antidoping Switzerland appealed the decision, arguing for a suspension of up to three months, a reprimand, and additional penalties, including covering the costs of the analysis and legal proceedings. The case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which confirmed its jurisdiction under Swiss law. The CAS emphasized that athletes, even minors, are responsible for their choice of medical and sporting entourage, though youth and lack of experience could mitigate fault. The tribunal upheld the annulment of V.’s results but refrained from imposing further sanctions, considering his age, reliance on his trainer, and the absence of intent to dope. The case highlights the strict liability principle in doping violations while acknowledging mitigating factors such as the athlete’s minor status and the influence of trusted adults.
The appeal by Antidoping Switzerland was filed within the 21-day deadline, making it admissible. The dispute centered on V.'s positive test for prohibited substances, and the Disciplinary Chamber’s initial decision was inconsistent, as it denied a doping violation while still imposing penalties. The CAS ruled that the annulment of results under Article 9 of the Statute was mandatory for the specific competition where the violation occurred. Regarding sanctions, the CAS noted that athletes bear responsibility for their entourage, and exemptions under Articles 10.5.1 and 10.5.2—applicable only in exceptional cases of no fault—were not justified. Instead, Article 10.4 applied, allowing for reduced sanctions if the substance’s presence was unintentional and not performance-enhancing. Given V.’s youth, lack of experience, and absence of performance-enhancing intent, his fault was deemed minimal.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the annulment of V.’s results and prizes but imposed only a reprimand, considering the circumstances. The decision underscores the strict liability principle in doping cases while recognizing the need for proportionality, especially for young athletes. The court rejected further claims from the parties involved, concluding that the case demonstrated the importance of considering an athlete's age and circumstances when fault is minimal and unintentional. The final ruling maintained the disqualification of V.’s competitive results but rejected harsher penalties due to the mitigating factors.