The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a reduced sanction imposed on wrestler Laszlo Szabolcs by the Romanian Anti-Doping Agency (RADA). Szabolcs tested positive for methylhexaneamine, a prohibited substance, during a competition in July 2012. He admitted to taking a product called "Tested Burner," believing it contained only caffeine and 1,3 dimethylamilamine, which he checked against the WADA Prohibited List but did not find listed under that name. He later learned that 1,3 dimethylamilamine is another name for methylhexaneamine, a prohibited substance. Szabolcs claimed he took the pills to alleviate discomfort caused by high temperatures, not to enhance performance.
The Romanian Hearing Commission initially suspended Szabolcs for three months, considering his honesty, first-time violation, and the nature of the substance as a Specified Stimulant. WADA appealed, seeking a two-year suspension, but the Appeal Commission upheld the three-month sanction, citing Szabolcs' lack of intent to enhance performance and his precautionary steps in checking the product's ingredients. The CAS panel, led by Prof. Ulrich Haas, examined whether Szabolcs met the criteria for a reduced sanction under Article 10.4 of the WADA Code, which requires proving how the substance entered his body and demonstrating no intent to enhance performance. The panel acknowledged Szabolcs' efforts to research the product online and cross-check ingredients, though it noted he could have sought professional advice. His negligence was deemed minor, especially since the substance was listed under a different name. The panel referenced similar CAS cases where light negligence resulted in reduced sanctions and concluded that the three-month suspension was appropriate.
WADA argued for stricter sanctions, emphasizing the athlete's responsibility to verify all possible names for prohibited substances and consult medical professionals. The athlete countered that he had taken reasonable precautions, researching the product and consuming only two pills for recovery, not performance enhancement. The Second Respondent, the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADO), supported the initial decision, citing financial constraints and consistency with similar cases. The CAS Sole Arbitrator reviewed the case de novo, assessing the admissibility of the appeal and the applicable law, which included Romanian Law 227/2006 and the WADC. The arbitrator noted the WADC's role in harmonizing anti-doping policies globally and the alignment of national laws with its framework.
The arbitrator concluded that Szabolcs' actions warranted a reduction in sanction due to the lack of intent and the context of use, aligning with the WADC’s leniency for specified substances. However, the arbitrator imposed a five-month ineligibility period, starting retroactively from the date of the provisional suspension (August 8, 2012), with disqualification of all results during that period. The decision underscores the importance of uniform interpretation between national laws and the WADC and highlights the role of fault assessment in determining sanctions for anti-doping violations. The case reaffirms that reduced sanctions are possible when athletes demonstrate reasonable precautions and lack of intent to dope, even if their efforts fall short of ideal due to complexities like alternate substance names. The CAS partially upheld WADA's appeal, overturning RADA's decision but imposing a sanction lighter than WADA's initial request. The ruling emphasizes strict adherence to anti-doping regulations while recognizing the challenges athletes face in ensuring supplement safety.