Dominique Blake, a Jamaican sprinter, appealed a six-year ban imposed by the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) for a second doping offense involving methylhexanamine (MHA), a prohibited stimulant found in the supplement Neurocore. The appeal was heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which assessed whether Blake was entitled to a reduction in her period of ineligibility under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC). Blake admitted to the violation but argued she did not intend to enhance her performance, claiming she unknowingly ingested MHA through Neurocore, recommended by her mentor. The CAS panel, comprising Yves Fortier, Graeme Mew, and David Rivkin, examined whether Blake could prove the absence of intent under Article 10.4 of the WADC, which requires corroborating evidence beyond the athlete’s statement. The panel found that taking a stimulant like MHA shortly before a race could reasonably be seen as performance-enhancing, given its potential to combat fatigue and aid recovery.
Blake also sought a reduction under Article 10.5.2 of the WADC, arguing she demonstrated "No Significant Fault or Negligence." The panel emphasized that athletes must exercise utmost caution to avoid prohibited substances and noted Blake’s failure to verify the supplement’s contents, which undermined her claim of negligible fault. The panel rejected her argument that she was unaware of the warning label on Neurocore, as she admitted to examining the label for usage instructions, which included a clear directive to read the entire label. The panel concluded Blake willfully ignored these warnings, relying instead on her mentor’s advice, demonstrating a disregard for her responsibility to avoid prohibited substances—a duty she had acknowledged after her first doping offense.
The panel assessed Blake’s degree of fault under Article 10.7 of the WADC, considering this was her second violation, which typically carries a 4-6 year suspension. Mitigating factors included her research into the product’s ingredients, the manufacturer’s unclear labeling, her limited anti-doping education, and her minimal prior experience with doping controls. Aggravating factors were those previously considered by the Tribunal. While consistency in sanctions is important, the panel prioritized correctness, finding the original 6-year penalty too severe. Instead, they imposed a 4.5-year suspension, reflecting her degree of fault and the mitigating circumstances. The panel also adjusted the start date of her ineligibility to July 1, 2012, the date of sample collection, rather than the Tribunal’s chosen date of July 24, 2012.
Ultimately, the appeal was partially upheld, reducing Blake’s suspension to 4.5 years starting from July 1, 2012, and setting aside the Tribunal’s original decision. The case underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and the high burden on athletes to prove lack of intent or significant fault. It also highlights the challenges athletes face in contesting doping sanctions and the rigorous standards applied in such disputes. The decision reinforces the importance of due diligence and the consequences of failing to adhere to anti-doping protocols.