The case involves an appeal by a wrestler, referred to as A., against a two-year suspension imposed by the Fédération Internationale de Luttes Associées (FILA) following a positive doping test for nandrolone metabolites at the 2000 Sydney Olympics. A. did not contest his disqualification from the Olympics but challenged the suspension, arguing procedural unfairness and lack of intent or negligence. He claimed he had unknowingly consumed the prohibited substance through a nutritional supplement, Pyrovate 500, recommended by his sponsor, which did not list nandrolone on its label. Subsequent testing confirmed the supplement's contamination. A. argued that his clean record and lack of fault should mitigate the sanction, challenging FILA's strict liability rule.
FILA maintained that the presence of a prohibited substance warranted suspension under strict liability, emphasizing that elite athletes should be aware of supplement risks, citing prior IOC warnings. However, it acknowledged that mitigating circumstances might justify a reduced penalty. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld strict liability, stressing that fairness in competition requires disqualification regardless of intent. The panel rejected A.'s defense regarding mislabeled supplements, warning that such arguments could encourage deceptive practices by manufacturers. Nevertheless, considering A.'s lack of intent and clean record, the panel reduced his suspension from two years to one.
The ruling clarified that the athlete-federation relationship is civil, not criminal, meaning principles like in dubio pro reo do not apply. Athletes bear the burden of proving lack of fault once a prohibited substance is detected. The decision reinforced strict liability's role in maintaining fair competition while allowing for reduced sanctions in cases of no significant fault. The case highlighted the risks of nutritional supplements and the need for athlete vigilance.
During proceedings, A. alleged a violation of his right to be heard, as the FILA Sport Judge issued a suspension without allowing him to present his case. The CAS, applying Swiss law due to FILA's Swiss seat, remedied this through a full hearing. The panel noted inconsistencies in FILA's doping definitions but upheld the applicability of IOC standards and FILA's authority to impose or reduce sanctions. It emphasized that suspensions require proof of fault, distinguishing them from event disqualifications, which can follow strict liability. The panel found A. negligent for not verifying the supplement's contents, especially given IOC warnings and prior cases of contamination. However, it deemed the standard two-year sanction disproportionate, reducing it to 15 months, effective from the test date (27 September 2000) to 26 December 2001.
The case underscored the tension between anti-doping enforcement and athlete rights, advocating for a balanced approach. While federations may presume guilt upon detecting prohibited substances, athletes can rebut this by demonstrating lack of intent or negligence. The panel's decision reflected the need for proportionality, considering mitigating factors to avoid unjust penalties. Ultimately, the ruling affirmed the importance of strict liability in doping cases while safeguarding athletes' legal and personal rights, ensuring fair competition without undue harshness.