The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) case 2012/A/2747 involved an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the Judo Bond Nederland (JBN) Appeal Board, which had reduced the sanction for judoka Dennis de Goede after he tested positive for methylhexaneamine, a prohibited stimulant. The substance was traced to a nutritional supplement, Jack3d, which de Goede had taken to combat tiredness. The case centered on the interpretation of Article 10.4 of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), which allows for reduced sanctions in cases involving specified substances if the athlete can demonstrate a lack of intent to enhance performance. The sole arbitrator, Prof. Ulrich Haas, clarified that Article 10.4 does not require the athlete to prove they did not take the substance to enhance performance but acknowledges that specified substances may be ingested unintentionally, such as through contaminated supplements. The decision distinguished between sanctions under Article 10.4 and Article 10.5.2 WADC, noting that Article 10.4 allows for greater reductions due to the higher likelihood of inadvertent use.
The case also addressed the concept of intent, clarifying that it includes both direct and indirect intent. An athlete acts intentionally if they knowingly ingest a prohibited substance or accept the risk of doing so. However, if the behavior was merely negligent, Article 10.4 could still apply. The arbitrator noted the difficulty in distinguishing between indirect intent and negligence in practice. The ruling considered the timing of substance ingestion, as methylhexaneamine is prohibited only in-competition, meaning the violation occurs only if the substance is present during competition. Thus, intent under Article 10.4 requires that the athlete knowingly ingested the substance and allowed it to remain in their system during competition.
De Goede had taken the supplement Jack3d, which contained methylhexaneamine but was labeled as containing geranium extract. He did not research the supplement’s contents, and the JBN Appeal Board initially reduced his sanction to a warning. WADA appealed, arguing for a stricter penalty. The arbitrator determined that while de Goede bore responsibility for the violation, his lack of intent to dope warranted a reduced sanction under Article 10.4. The decision reinforced the WADC’s nuanced approach to specified substances, balancing strict liability with fairness in cases of inadvertent violations. It clarified the legal distinctions between intent and negligence and the applicability of different sanctioning provisions under the WADC.
The case also involved procedural complexities, including extensions for submissions and the parties' agreement to have the case decided based on written submissions. The Sole Arbitrator imposed an 18-month ineligibility period, referencing similar cases where sanctions ranged from reprimands to 18 months, depending on circumstances. The period of ineligibility began on the date of the JBN Appeal Board's decision, December 29, 2011, with credit given for a provisional suspension served by de Goede. The ruling partially upheld WADA’s appeal, replacing the JBN Appeal Board's decision with an 18-month ineligibility period and disqualifying all relevant results. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural rules while ensuring fairness in anti-doping sanctions, highlighting the tension between strict liability and mitigating circumstances in anti-doping regulations.