The case revolves around Attila Ungvári, a Hungarian judoka, who appealed a doping violation decision by the International Judo Federation (IJF). Ungvári tested positive for prohibited substances—stanozolol metabolites, furosemide, and mesterolone—during competitions in 2011, leading to a two-year ban, disqualification of results, and forfeiture of medals. Ungvári claimed the substances were introduced into his system without his knowledge by Gergely Kalmár, a combat sports fan who allegedly spiked his isotonic drink. Evidence supporting this claim included Kalmár’s confession, polygraph tests, and statements from coaches and teammates. However, the IJF dismissed these as unreliable, citing the implausibility of a fan secretly doping an athlete and the lack of independent corroboration. The Budapest Police terminated an investigation into Kalmár, concluding no criminal act was committed, but this did not absolve Ungvári of negligence under anti-doping rules.
Ungvári sought to overturn the IJF’s decision under Article 10.5.1 of the WADA Code, which allows reduced sanctions if an athlete proves no fault or negligence. He argued the substances were outdated and not performance-enhancing for judo, emphasizing his clean record and family reliance on his career. The IJF upheld its decision, stressing the strict liability principle in doping cases, where athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances in their bodies regardless of intent. The case proceeded to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which examined the admissibility of new evidence. The CAS ruled that only the police report qualified as new evidence, but it did not address Ungvári’s fault or negligence. The panel found gaps in Ungvári’s account, such as inadequate details about facility security and his delay in reporting the incident.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Ungvári’s appeal, affirming the IJF’s sanctions. The decision highlighted the stringent requirements for proving third-party sabotage in doping cases and the high burden of proof on athletes to demonstrate no fault or negligence. The ruling underscored the challenges athletes face in contesting doping violations, even with evidence of potential sabotage, and reinforced the strict liability framework of anti-doping regulations. The case concluded with no further avenues for appeal, solidifying the original sanctions against Ungvári.