The case involves an appeal by a Paraguayan beach volleyball player, P., against a decision by the Fédération Internationale de Volleyball (FIVB) regarding an anti-doping rule violation. During the 2013 FIVB Beach Volleyball World Championship in Poland, P. tested positive for the prohibited substance "Cocaine metabolite Ecgonine methyl ester." The FIVB Disciplinary Commission found her guilty and imposed a two-year period of ineligibility, ruling that while she demonstrated how the substance entered her body, she failed to prove a lack of significant fault or negligence under Article 10.5.2 of the FIVB Medical Regulations. P. appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking to annul the decision or reduce the sanction to one year. She argued that she had unintentionally ingested the substance through coca candies, which were recommended by organizers and medical staff at the Bolivarian Games in Bolivia to alleviate altitude sickness. She claimed she was unaware the candies contained a prohibited substance and had no intention to enhance performance.
The FIVB countered that the adverse analytical finding (AAF) was valid, as the metabolite levels exceeded the 50% Minimum Required Performance Level (MRPL) threshold in both A and B samples. They argued that P. misinterpreted the laboratory report, which confirmed the presence of the metabolite above the threshold. The FIVB also contested her claim of no significant fault, noting her professional experience since age 17 and her completion of WADA's anti-doping education modules. They dismissed her argument about the candies being recommended, as she provided no evidence, and pointed out that Poland's low altitude made her justification for using them irrelevant.
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from Chile, Paraguay, and Greece, examined the case, emphasizing the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations. The panel noted that athletes bear a strict duty of care regarding substances they ingest. P. had violated this duty by consuming a product for a purpose other than its intended use without medical consultation, failing to exercise sufficient caution. The panel also highlighted that the burden of proof lies with the party alleging circumstances that release them from responsibility, and P.'s claims were insufficient to overturn the sanction.
The panel reviewed witness statements and conducted a hearing in Buenos Aires, where P.'s inconsistencies were noted. She initially claimed the candies were for altitude sickness but later stated they were for stomach pain. The panel found her explanations unreliable, particularly as she failed to disclose her chronic gastritis earlier. Additionally, the packaging of the candies clearly indicated they contained coca, which should have alerted her to the risk of a doping violation. The panel concluded that P. did not meet the required standard of care and failed to prove her lack of significant fault or negligence.
Ultimately, the panel upheld the FIVB's decision, confirming the two-year suspension. The ruling reinforces the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and the high standard of care expected from athletes regarding prohibited substances. The case underscores that athletes must thoroughly verify any products they consume to avoid inadvertent doping violations, regardless of intent or negligence. The decision also highlights the challenges athletes face in proving lack of fault in such cases, particularly when evidence is insufficient or inconsistent. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sanction was maintained.