The case involves Tomáš Enge, a professional motor racing driver, who appealed a doping violation decision by the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute centered on the presence of levmetamfetamine and amphetamine in Enge’s urine sample during an in-competition test in May 2012. Enge argued that the substances entered his system through the use of a Vicks Inhaler, which he had previously used without issue in the UK. However, the Czech version of the product contained levmetamfetamine, a specified stimulant, which metabolizes into amphetamine, a non-specified substance. The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Hans Nater, examined whether Enge could benefit from a reduced sanction under the FIA Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR). Article 10.4 of the ADR allows for reduced penalties if the athlete proves the substance was unintentionally ingested, was a specified substance, and there was no intent to enhance performance. The panel found that while levmetamfetamine is a specified substance, amphetamine is not, and its presence could not be excused under the same lenient provisions. The panel emphasized that an experienced athlete like Enge, familiar with anti-doping rules, bears personal responsibility for ensuring no prohibited substances enter their body.
The panel rejected Enge’s argument that the breakdown of levmetamfetamine into amphetamine should exonerate him, noting that amphetamine could originate from other sources and that stricter rules apply to non-specified substances. Under Article 10.5.2 of the ADR, a reduction in the sanction is only possible if the athlete demonstrates "No Significant Fault or Negligence." Given Enge’s prior doping violation (for cannabis in 2002) and his failure to verify the contents of the Czech Vicks Inhaler despite warnings about varying drug compositions across countries, the panel found his fault significant. Ultimately, the CAS upheld a 12-month suspension, the minimum applicable for non-specified substances under Article 10.5.2, considering Enge’s degree of fault. The decision reinforced the principle that athletes must rigorously verify medications, especially when competing internationally, and highlighted the distinction between specified and non-specified substances in determining sanctions.
Enge appealed the FIA Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee’s decision, which imposed an 18-month suspension for the violation. He admitted the violation but argued the sanction was disproportionate, citing his lack of intent to enhance performance, the minimal concentration of prohibited substances in his system, and the harmless nature of the over-the-counter product he used. He claimed he mistakenly used an American version of the Vicks Inhaler, which contained levmetamfetamine, instead of the UK version, which did not. The FIA countered by requesting the dismissal of Enge’s appeal, arguing that the original decision was fair and well-reasoned, emphasizing Enge’s high degree of fault due to his experience and prior violation. The CAS upheld the FIA’s decision, stating that Enge’s degree of fault and negligence was high due to his failure to verify the contents of the nasal product, which clearly indicated the presence of levmetamfetamine.
The Sole Arbitrator found Enge negligent in his actions, rejecting his arguments about age, career impact, and lack of intent to enhance performance. The decision underscored the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes bear full responsibility for any prohibited substances in their bodies, regardless of intent. The ruling reinforced the importance of due diligence in verifying medications, even from trusted sources, to avoid unintentional violations. The CAS concluded that the 18-month sanction was proportionate, aligning with established anti-doping jurisprudence and emphasizing the need for uniform application of rules to ensure fairness and integrity in sports. The appeal was dismissed, and all additional requests for relief were rejected, upholding the FIA’s original decision in full.