The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a doping case involving athlete Aaron Rathy and the International Waterski and Wakeboard Federation (IWWF), following an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Rathy tested positive for methylhexaneamine, a prohibited stimulant, during the 2011 Pan American Games. The substance was traced to a dietary supplement, "OxyElite Pro," which Rathy claimed he used for weight loss after knee surgery, not to enhance performance. The IWWF initially issued only a reprimand, but WADA appealed, arguing for a stricter sanction due to Rathy’s negligence in verifying the supplement’s contents.
The CAS panel, composed of Mr. Conny Jörneklint, Prof. Massimo Coccia, and Mrs. Blondel Thompson, found Rathy significantly at fault for failing to take basic precautions, such as consulting a doctor or checking the manufacturer’s website. While Rathy did not intend to enhance performance—a mitigating factor—his negligence warranted more than a reprimand. The panel emphasized the strict liability principle in anti-doping rules, which holds athletes responsible for any prohibited substances in their system, regardless of intent. Under the IWWF Anti-Doping Rules and the World Anti-Doping Code, specified substances like methylhexaneamine allow for reduced sanctions if the athlete proves no performance-enhancing intent. However, the panel ruled Rathy’s fault was too significant to justify leniency.
The proceedings were conducted based on written submissions, as no hearing was requested. WADA sought a sanction of 12 to 24 months, while the IWWF defended its initial decision. Rathy did not submit a formal response. The panel concluded that Rathy’s lack of diligence justified a stricter penalty, reinforcing the principle that athletes must verify supplement safety. The panel imposed a 15-month ineligibility period, starting on 1 August 2012, citing delays partly due to Rathy’s lack of cooperation. They also annulled his competitive results from 21 October 2011 onward, including forfeiture of medals and prizes.
The decision underscores the high standard of care expected from athletes to avoid doping violations. While Rathy’s lack of intent was acknowledged, his failure to exercise due diligence led to a significant sanction. The case highlights the balance between enforcing strict anti-doping measures and considering mitigating circumstances, ultimately upholding the integrity of fair competition. The ruling serves as a reminder of the consequences of negligence in anti-doping compliance.