The case of Dimitar Kutrovsky versus the International Tennis Federation (ITF) involved a doping violation related to the use of the supplement Jack3d, which contained the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (MHA). Kutrovsky, a professional tennis player, tested positive for MHA during the SAP Open in February 2012. He admitted the violation but argued that he ingested the substance unintentionally and without intent to enhance his performance, seeking a reduction in his two-year suspension under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC). The ITF disputed his claim, leading to an appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators Yves Fortier, Jeffrey Benz, and Michael Beloff, reviewed the case de novo, examining whether Kutrovsky met the conditions for a reduced sanction under Article 10.4 (no intent to enhance performance) or Article 10.5.2 (no significant fault or negligence) of the WADC. Kutrovsky contended that he relied on a salesperson’s assurance and cross-referenced the supplement’s ingredients with the WADA Prohibited List, finding no matches. Witnesses, including his brother and fellow player Andy Roddick, testified to his character and lack of intent to cheat. However, the panel found inconsistencies in his testimony, particularly his failure to declare Jack3d on his doping control form, listing only "vitamins" and "advil."
The panel clarified that under Article 10.4, an athlete must prove how the substance entered their body and demonstrate the absence of intent to enhance performance, requiring corroborating evidence beyond mere testimony. While Kutrovsky established the source of MHA, he failed to prove he lacked intent to enhance performance, given the supplement’s stimulant properties and its ingestion close to competition. The panel rejected the argument that ignorance of the substance’s presence automatically negates intent, aligning with the stricter interpretation in the Foggo case rather than the more lenient Oliveira precedent.
Under Article 10.5.2, the panel assessed Kutrovsky’s degree of fault, considering mitigating factors such as his youth, lack of formal anti-doping education, and efforts to research the supplement. However, aggravating factors included his reliance on a store employee’s recommendation instead of expert advice and his inadequate due diligence, as online searches could have revealed warnings about Jack3d. The panel concluded that while his fault was not reckless, it was significant enough to warrant a sanction reduction but not to the minimum 12 months. Instead, a 15-month suspension was deemed appropriate, balancing the principles of strict liability and fairness.
The CAS partially upheld Kutrovsky’s appeal, reducing his suspension from 24 to 15 months, effective from February 14, 2012. His results from the SAP Open and a subsequent tournament were disqualified, with forfeiture of prize money and ranking points. The ruling underscored the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and the high burden on athletes to verify supplement safety, while also acknowledging the need for proportionate sanctions based on individual circumstances. The decision provided clarity on the interpretation of intent and fault under the WADC, reinforcing the importance of rigorous due diligence by athletes to avoid inadvertent doping violations.