Robert Kendrick, a professional tennis player from the United States, appealed a doping violation decision by the International Tennis Federation (ITF) to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The case centered on his positive test for methylhexaneamine, a specified substance under the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme, which he ingested through a supplement called Zija XM3. Kendrick claimed he took the product to alleviate jetlag before the 2011 French Open, relying on assurances from an acquaintance and limited online research suggesting the supplement was approved by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). However, his research was inadequate, as he failed to uncover the product’s banned ingredient or verify its safety thoroughly.
The CAS panel, composed of Graeme Mew, Jeffrey Benz, and Michael Beloff, reviewed whether Kendrick’s actions warranted a reduction in sanctions under the principles of "No Fault or Negligence" or "No Significant Fault or Negligence." The panel concluded he did not meet the stringent standard for "No Fault," as he relied on incomplete information and insufficient verification. While Kendrick demonstrated some caution by researching the product, the panel found his efforts fell short of the diligence required, especially given the known risks of supplement contamination. His failure to consult the ITF’s anti-doping resources further weakened his case.
The panel also addressed broader legal principles, rejecting the ITF’s argument that CAS should defer to its decision unless the sanction was "evidently and grossly disproportionate." The panel asserted its full authority to review facts and law independently, emphasizing proportionality and fairness. It clarified that the analysis of fault under Article 10.4 of the World Anti-Doping Code (for specified substances) is similar to that under Article 10.5 (for non-specified substances), though without the 50% reduction cap. Kendrick’s stressful personal circumstances, including the birth of his child and impending retirement, were considered mitigating factors, but the panel stressed these did not lower the expected standard of care.
Ultimately, the panel modified the ITF’s twelve-month suspension to eight months, deeming the original sanction too severe but rejecting Kendrick’s request for a three-month reduction. The decision balanced his lack of due diligence with the mitigating circumstances, disqualifying his French Open results and forfeiting associated ranking points and prize money while allowing him to retain earnings from subsequent tournaments. The case underscores the importance of rigorous supplement verification in professional sports and the CAS’s role in ensuring proportionate sanctions. It also highlights the risks athletes face when relying on unverified products and the necessity of thorough due diligence to avoid inadvertent doping violations. The panel’s ruling aimed to uphold anti-doping standards while acknowledging the unique context of Kendrick’s case.