The case involves Danish professional swimmer Mads Glaesner appealing a decision by the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) regarding an anti-doping rule violation. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) served as the arbitrator, with Prof. Ulrich Haas presiding. The dispute arose from the 2012 FINA World Swimming Championships in Istanbul, where Glaesner tested positive for the prohibited substance phenpromethamine during an in-competition test on December 14, 2012, following his participation in the 400m freestyle event. A subsequent test on December 16, after his victory in the 1500m freestyle, was negative. Glaesner did not contest the presence of the substance but sought clarification on the sanctions, including the disqualification of his results and the start date of his suspension.
The arbitrator addressed several legal principles, emphasizing that CAS has full power of review in doping cases, as federations do not possess greater expertise in applying the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), which aims for uniform global standards. The principle of lex specialis derogat generali was applied, determining that Article 10.1 of the FINA Doping Control Rules (FINA DC), which addresses disqualification of results in multi-event competitions, prevails over the more general Article 10.8. Any ambiguity in the rules was interpreted against FINA, as the drafter of the rules.
The key criterion for disqualifying results under Article 10.1 was whether the anti-doping violation "contaminated" the entire competition, meaning the results were morally tainted. This depends on the seriousness of the violation, particularly the athlete's degree of fault. The term "fairness" in Article 10.8 was interpreted broadly to include factors like the severity of the violation and its impact on subsequent results. The arbitrator concluded that Glaesner's violation did not meet the threshold to disqualify his 1500m freestyle result, as the substance detected was not performance-enhancing for that event, and the violation was not severe enough to taint all his results.
Glaesner's appeal was based on several arguments, including the applicability of FINA DC 10.1 over FINA DC 10.8, the minimal fault due to accidental ingestion, and his clean doping record. FINA defended its decision, arguing that its Doping Panel correctly applied the rules, particularly FINA DC 10.8, which mandates disqualification of results following an anti-doping rule violation unless fairness dictates otherwise. The Sole Arbitrator rejected FINA's argument, emphasizing that the case involved imposing an additional sanction rather than the length of the sanction, and upheld Glaesner's appeal regarding the 1500m freestyle result.
The arbitrator also ordered FINA to issue a corrective press release clarifying that only Glaesner's result from December 14, 2012, was disqualified, while the result from December 16, 2012, remained valid. All other claims were dismissed. The case underscores the importance of uniform application of anti-doping rules, the need for independent adjudication, and the careful interpretation of sanctions to ensure fairness while upholding the integrity of sports competitions. The decision highlights the principle of proportionality in sanctions and the athlete's right to a fair hearing.