The case involves a dispute between the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and two Indian athletes, Mandeep Kaur and Jauna Murmu, along with the Athletics Federation of India (AFI), regarding anti-doping violations. The athletes tested positive for prohibited substances—methandienone and stanozolol—during out-of-competition tests in May 2011. They claimed the substances entered their systems through contaminated supplements, specifically Ginseng Kianpi Pills, provided by their coach. The case was initially handled by the Indian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ADDP), which reduced their suspension to one year, citing no significant fault or negligence. The IAAF appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking to reinstate the standard two-year suspension.
The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Mark Hovell, emphasized the principle of strict liability in anti-doping regulations, holding athletes responsible for any prohibited substances in their bodies. The athletes bore the burden of proving how the substances entered their systems on a balance of probabilities. While they submitted evidence, including laboratory tests confirming contamination in the Kianpi Pills, the IAAF contested these findings, presenting tests from other WADA-accredited labs that found no prohibited substances in different batches of the same pills. The IAAF also suggested the coach may have administered a separate doping regimen, supported by expert testimony. The panel found the athletes' evidence insufficient to conclusively prove the source of the contamination.
The athletes argued they relied on their coach, a trusted figure appointed by the Sports Authority of India (SAI), and lacked anti-doping education or access to resources like the internet. However, the panel noted inconsistencies in their testimonies and highlighted their failure to verify the supplements' safety, consult medical professionals, or conduct basic research. The panel rejected their claim of no significant fault or negligence, stating that athletes cannot shift responsibility to third parties and must exercise personal diligence. The IAAF reinforced this by pointing to widespread warnings about supplement risks from organizations like WADA and NADA.
The Sole Arbitrator concluded that the athletes did not meet the criteria for a reduced sanction under IAAF rules, which require truly exceptional circumstances. Their lack of proactive measures to avoid contamination, such as verifying supplement sources or seeking medical advice, demonstrated significant negligence. The panel upheld the IAAF's appeal, imposing the full two-year suspension and disqualifying all competitive results obtained during the violation period. The decision underscored the importance of athlete accountability and the need for robust anti-doping education, particularly in regions like India where systemic challenges exist. The ruling reinforced the strict liability principle, ensuring athletes remain vigilant about supplement use to maintain the integrity of competitive sports.