The case involves Oleksandr Rybka, a professional footballer and goalkeeper for Shakhtar Donetsk, who appealed a two-year suspension imposed by UEFA for a doping violation. The suspension stemmed from an adverse analytical finding of Furosemide, a prohibited diuretic, in his urine sample during an out-of-competition test on November 30, 2011. Rybka waived his right to have his B sample analyzed, and UEFA's Control and Disciplinary Body (CDB) initially suspended him on January 27, 2012. The UEFA Appeals Body upheld the decision on March 16, 2012, rejecting Rybka's appeal.
Rybka argued that he unknowingly ingested Furosemide when his wife gave him a glass of water containing the substance, claiming he had no intent to enhance performance or mask other substances. He emphasized his successful season and denied using Furosemide for weight loss. However, UEFA maintained that Rybka failed to prove how the substance entered his system on the balance of probabilities, as required under UEFA Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR). Additionally, UEFA contended that Rybka did not demonstrate the absence of intent to mask performance-enhancing substances.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel reviewed the case and noted that under UEFA ADR, a player must first establish how the prohibited substance entered their body before any consideration of fault or reduction in sanction. Since Rybka did not meet this burden, the panel did not assess his degree of negligence. UEFA argued that even if Rybka had proven how the substance entered his system, his extreme negligence justified the standard two-year suspension.
Rybka provided inconsistent explanations over time. Initially, he claimed he took the medication on his wife's advice to treat facial swelling without knowing its contents. Later, he stated his wife had secretly added the drug to his water, which he drank unknowingly. His wife corroborated this version, stating she added Furosemide to his water to treat his swelling and only informed him afterward. However, the panel found these accounts inconsistent and lacking credibility. Medical records showed his wife had a short-term prescription for Furosemide for her own condition, with no evidence she retained the drug months later. The panel also dismissed the possibility that Furosemide was used as a masking agent, as there was no supporting evidence. Instead, they considered it more likely that the substance was used for weight loss, given reports from Rybka's coaches about his occasional weight issues and alleged use of diuretics.
Ultimately, the CAS panel upheld UEFA's decision, confirming the two-year suspension and dismissing Rybka's appeal. The ruling reinforced the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances in their system unless they can provide a credible explanation. The case underscores the importance of athletes exercising extreme caution to avoid inadvertent doping violations, even in personal settings like their homes.