The case revolves around Albert Subirats, a Venezuelan professional swimmer and two-time Olympian, who appealed a doping control violation decision by the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA). As part of FINA's Registered Testing Pool (RTP), Subirats was required to submit accurate whereabouts information for unannounced doping tests. Although he delegated this responsibility to the Venezuelan Swimming Federation (VSF), FINA rules hold athletes ultimately accountable for ensuring timely and complete filings. Between 2010 and 2011, VSF failed to forward Subirats' whereabouts information to FINA on three occasions, resulting in filing failures. FINA notified VSF but did not communicate directly with Subirats, and VSF delayed informing him until after the third violation. Consequently, FINA's Doping Panel imposed a one-year ineligibility period and disqualified his results from January 2011 onward.
Subirats appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing he had not been properly notified of the filing failures. CAS examined the case under FINA's Doping Control Rules and the World Anti-Doping Code, affirming that athletes in the RTP bear ultimate responsibility for their whereabouts filings, even if delegated. However, it also ruled that anti-doping organizations must ensure athletes receive direct notification of filing failures. CAS found that FINA failed to notify Subirats directly, relying on VSF, which did not promptly relay the information. Since Subirats was unaware of the violations until after the third failure, CAS ruled he could not be held responsible for the missed deadlines. The appeal was upheld, overturning FINA's sanctions and clarifying the obligations of both athletes and anti-doping organizations in the whereabouts filing process.
The decision established that an athlete can only be declared to have committed a filing failure if the anti-doping organization proves the athlete was duly notified of their RTP inclusion, filing requirements, and consequences of non-compliance. Athletes must also have failed to meet deadlines and, in cases of multiple failures, must have been notified of prior failures and failed to rectify them. While athletes may delegate filings to third parties, they remain responsible for accurate submissions, and delegation does not absolve them if the third party fails. In Subirats' case, CAS ruled that since he did not receive timely notices, he could not rectify the failures and thus could not be held responsible for the second and third violations.
CAS overturned FINA's decision, canceled the additional filing failures, and reinstated Subirats' results. The ruling emphasized that anti-doping organizations must ensure athletes are directly notified of filing failures to provide a fair opportunity to correct deficiencies. The June 21, 2011, decision by FINA was overturned, and all other requests for relief were dismissed. The final ruling cleared Subirats of the allegations, reinstated his competitive record, and underscored the importance of direct communication in doping control procedures. The case highlights CAS's role in reviewing and overturning disciplinary actions when necessary, ensuring fairness and accountability in anti-doping regulations.