The case involves Omar Andres Pinzon Garcia, a Colombian Olympic swimmer, who appealed a doping violation decision by the Federación Colombiana de Natación (FECNA) to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Pinzon tested positive for cocaine metabolites during the Colombian National Sporting Games in November 2012. The laboratory in Bogotá reported an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) for cocaine and its metabolites, Benzoylecgonine (BZE) and Methylecgonine (EME). However, the laboratory documentation provided to Pinzon’s counsel was incomplete, missing key screening results for BZE, and the lab failed to conduct confirmation analyses for BZE, citing equipment unavailability.
FECNA’s Disciplinary Commission initially imposed a two-year ineligibility period on Pinzon, which he appealed. The appeal was dismissed as untimely, prompting Pinzon to take the case to CAS. The CAS panel identified significant procedural flaws in the doping control process, including a complete absence of an external chain of custody and multiple deficiencies in the internal chain of custody, violating the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) International Standard for Laboratories (ISL). FECNA also failed to provide the laboratory’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), preventing Pinzon from verifying whether the lab adhered to its own protocols. The panel ruled that these breaches shifted the burden of proof to FECNA to demonstrate that the procedural violations did not cause the AAF. Since FECNA could not meet this burden, the panel overturned the doping violation sanction.
The case highlights persistent non-compliance by FECNA, necessitating repeated CAS interventions to ensure procedural fairness. FECNA refused to pay its share of the proceedings' costs, forcing Pinzon to cover the entire advance. The respondent also failed to provide requested documents on time, submitted incomplete or untranslated materials, and did not attend the hearing, citing a lack of human resources. The panel proceeded without FECNA’s input, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and evidentiary standards.
During the hearing, Pinzon and his legal team presented their case, calling expert witnesses who highlighted deficiencies in the chain of custody and testing methods. The athlete argued that the test results were scientifically implausible, as the concentration of cocaine was nearly double that of its metabolite EME, contrary to typical metabolic patterns. The absence of testing for BZE further undermined the reliability of the lab results. The panel concluded that the anomalous results could only be explained by lab error, sample manipulation, or adulteration.
The Panel identified three independent reasons to overturn the original decision: the analytical results did not conclusively prove an AAF, no anti-doping rule violation could be established without proof of an AAF, and the scientific evidence cast significant doubt on the validity of the test results. The Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld the appeal, nullified the FECNA Disciplinary Commission's decision, and ordered the reinstatement of the athlete's awards and honors. The ruling emphasized the importance of reliable scientific evidence and proper chain of custody in doping cases, ultimately finding no violation of anti-doping rules by the athlete.