The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding gymnast Andrey Krylov's doping violation. During the 2012 Loulé World Cup, Krylov tested positive for methylhexaneamine (a specified stimulant) and 4-phenylpiracetam (a non-specified stimulant). He admitted to using the substances, claiming he took them for health reasons without intent to enhance performance, purchasing them from a pharmacy on a pharmacist's advice. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed against the Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG)'s initial decision, which had imposed a 12-month suspension, arguing for a stricter two-year ineligibility period.
The CAS panel outlined key legal principles for such cases. For specified substances, athletes must provide corroborating evidence beyond their own testimony to prove no intent to enhance performance, meeting a standard of "comfortable satisfaction." For non-specified substances, athletes must demonstrate "No Significant Fault or Negligence" by showing their fault was minor relative to the violation. The panel emphasized that negligence is high when athletes fail to consult professionals before using substances or use products for unintended purposes. Ignorance of anti-doping rules or lack of federation support does not justify reduced sanctions.
Krylov argued that he used Phenotropil (containing 4-phenylpiracetam) for headaches and memory issues and geranium essential oil (allegedly containing methylhexaneamine) for a cold. However, WADA's expert testimony disputed these claims, stating the explanations were pharmacologically implausible. The panel found Krylov highly negligent for not consulting a doctor or verifying the substances' status, despite his claims of unintentional use. His explanation lacked sufficient corroborating evidence to meet the required standard.
The CAS upheld WADA's appeal, imposing a two-year ineligibility period, crediting time already served under provisional suspension. The decision reinforces strict liability in doping cases and the importance of athlete diligence in avoiding prohibited substances. Krylov's competitive results from September 8, 2012, onward were disqualified, including forfeiture of medals and prizes. The panel dismissed mitigating factors like lack of anti-doping education, previous negative tests, and personal difficulties, emphasizing that ignorance of the rules is not a valid defense.
The ruling underscores the rigorous standards applied in anti-doping adjudications and the uniform application of anti-doping rules across sports. The CAS panel's decision highlights the necessity for athletes to exercise extreme caution with any substances they ingest and to seek professional advice to avoid inadvertent violations. The case serves as a reminder of the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and the high burden of proof required for athletes to justify reduced sanctions.