The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding a doping violation by Brazilian swimmer Fabiola Molina, who tested positive for methylhexaneamine (MHA), a prohibited substance classified as a "specified stimulant" under the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List. The violation occurred during a competition in April 2011. The Confederação Brasileira de Desportos Aquáticos (CBDA) initially imposed a two-month suspension, citing Molina's exemplary conduct, lack of intent to enhance performance, and first-time offense. However, the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) appealed, arguing for a stricter sanction.
The CAS panel examined the case under FINA Doping Control (DC) Rule 10.4, which allows reduced sanctions if the athlete proves the substance was not intended to enhance performance and provides evidence of how it entered their system. The panel emphasized the athlete's duty to avoid prohibited substances, particularly given the risks associated with nutritional supplements. It found Molina negligent for relying on past experience with an online retailer without verifying the supplement's contents, especially since the label disclosed MHA. The panel reviewed similar cases, noting sanctions ranging from reprimands to eight-month bans, depending on the athlete's diligence.
FINA sought a minimum six-month suspension, arguing the original two-month sanction was too lenient. Molina and CBDA defended the decision, citing mitigating factors like her clean record, lack of intent, and the supplement's misleading label. They also argued against setting the suspension start date from the CAS award, as it would unfairly extend her penalty. The panel acknowledged Molina's good faith but concluded her negligence warranted a stricter sanction. It increased the suspension to six months, starting from the date of the CAS award (20 December 2011), while crediting the two months already served, leaving four months remaining.
The panel underscored the importance of proportionality and fairness in anti-doping sanctions, balancing strict enforcement with consideration of individual circumstances. It affirmed the CAS's authority to review and adjust sanctions to ensure compliance with anti-doping regulations. The decision highlights the athlete's responsibility to verify supplement safety and the CAS's role in upholding consistent and just disciplinary measures. The ruling modified the CBDA's decision, imposing a six-month suspension with credit for time served, and dismissed all other relief requests. This case serves as a reminder of the stringent standards athletes must meet to avoid inadvertent doping violations.