The case involves an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) Tribunal concerning athlete Angela Covert, who tested positive for methylhexaneamine (DMAA), a prohibited stimulant, during an equestrian competition in June 2011. The FEI Tribunal had issued a reprimand, fine, and disqualification of results, but WADA sought a harsher sanction, including a two-to-four-year ineligibility period. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel addressed key issues such as laboratory obligations, the source of the prohibited substance, and appropriate sanctions. The panel ruled that laboratories must retain samples for at least three months or until any challenge is resolved, provided they are notified. If no notice is given, laboratories may dispose of samples. The panel also found that geranium oil, which Covert claimed was the source of methylhexaneamine, did not contain the substance. Since Covert failed to prove how the substance entered her system, she was not eligible for a reduced sanction.
The panel noted that procedural delays not attributable to the athlete could result in the ineligibility period starting earlier, potentially from the date of sample collection. It also emphasized that retaining competitive results during a period of ineligibility would be inconsistent with anti-doping rules, meaning all results during that period should be annulled. The case involved extensive procedural disputes, including Covert’s discovery requests for WADA’s testing documentation and communications with Merck, the manufacturer of the nasal spray she claimed contained the substance. WADA provided some documents but resisted broader requests, leading to further disputes. The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators David Rivkin, Massimo Coccia, and Graeme Mew, ultimately ruled on the merits of WADA’s appeal, setting aside the FEI Tribunal’s decision and imposing a stricter sanction on Covert.
The decision reinforces strict liability in anti-doping cases, requiring athletes to prove the source of prohibited substances to avoid sanctions. It also clarifies laboratory obligations and the handling of procedural delays in doping cases. The ruling ensures that anti-doping sanctions are applied consistently, even when procedural delays occur, and that athletes cannot benefit from competitive results obtained while in violation of anti-doping rules. The panel imposed a two-year ineligibility period on Covert, backdated to June 30, 2011, and disqualified all her competitive results, medals, points, and prizes from June 30, 2011, to June 30, 2013. The decision underscores the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations and the consequences of violations, including retroactive disqualification of results. The case highlights the complexities of anti-doping proceedings, the importance of scientific evidence, and the challenges athletes face in proving unintentional ingestion of prohibited substances.