The case involves a complex anti-doping dispute concerning a visually impaired athlete from Venezuela, referred to as I., who tested positive for methenolone, a prohibited anabolic steroid, during the 2011 Para National Games in Barquisimeto. The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) appealed decisions by Venezuelan sports bodies, including the Venezuelan National Anti-Doping Organization (VNADO) and the Sport Federation for Visually Impaired Athletes (FEPOCIVE), which had imposed minimal sanctions or exonerated the athlete. The case centered on the athlete's strict liability for the substance in her system, the burden of proof, procedural fairness, and the equitable treatment of disabled athletes under anti-doping regulations.
The athlete, who has a notable sports career including participation in the Beijing Paralympics, denied intentional doping, attributing the positive test to potential sabotage or unknowing ingestion due to her total visual impairment. She argued that her rights under Venezuelan law and the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) were violated, citing procedural delays and lack of evidence. The Venezuelan Honorary Council initially reduced her suspension, considering her clean record and the impracticality of her monitoring substances, but the IPC contested this, insisting on strict WADC compliance, including a standard two-year ban.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was tasked with resolving jurisdictional and substantive issues. The Sole Arbitrator affirmed CAS jurisdiction under the WADC and IPC Anti-Doping Code, emphasizing that all athletes, including those with disabilities, are bound by strict liability principles. The arbitrator found that the athlete failed to meet the burden of proof under Articles 10.5.1 or 10.5.2 of the WADC to demonstrate no fault or negligence, as she could not substantiate claims of sabotage or contamination. Procedural flaws, such as delayed notifications, were acknowledged but deemed remedied by the CAS rehearing.
The final ruling upheld the IPC's appeal, imposing a two-year ineligibility period retroactive to the sample collection date (August 21, 2011) and disqualifying her 2011 competition results. The decision underscored the uniform application of anti-doping rules, rejecting arguments that the athlete's impairment warranted leniency. It also highlighted tensions between national sports governance and international standards, with the IPC advocating for WADC adherence to ensure fair competition. The case set a precedent for handling anti-doping violations involving disabled athletes, reinforcing accountability while recognizing procedural safeguards. The arbitrator dismissed ancillary claims, concluding that the athlete's constitutional rights were not infringed and that the sanctions aligned with global anti-doping frameworks.
The outcome reflects the balance between enforcing strict anti-doping measures and addressing the unique challenges faced by visually impaired athletes, ultimately prioritizing the integrity of competitive sports. The case underscores the importance of procedural diligence and evidentiary rigor in anti-doping adjudications, particularly when intersecting with disability rights and national legal systems. The resolution reaffirms the authority of international sports bodies to standardize anti-doping enforcement across jurisdictions.