The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on the appeal of Tomasz Stepien, a Polish rugby player, against a doping violation decision by the Polish Rugby Union. Stepien had tested positive for methylhexaneamine (MHA), a prohibited stimulant found in the supplement Jack3d, which he claimed to have taken without knowledge of its banned contents. The CAS panel, comprising Prof. Martin Schimke, Mr. Piotr Nowaczyk, and Mr. Ken Lalo, conducted a de novo review, addressing procedural flaws in the initial hearing and key legal questions regarding intent under Article 10.4 of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC). This provision allows for reduced sanctions if the athlete proves the substance was not used to enhance performance. The panel emphasized that intent must relate to the prohibited substance itself, not just the product containing it, adopting a restrictive interpretation to protect athletes.
Stepien argued he relied on a salesperson’s assurances and the Polish-labeled ingredients, which did not list MHA. However, the panel highlighted the well-known risks of supplement contamination and WADA’s warnings. Despite his claim of inadvertent use, the panel found Stepien failed to prove lack of intent, as he knowingly took a supplement with potential doping risks. The ruling reinforced strict liability in doping cases, holding athletes responsible for substances they consume, even if contamination is unintended. The panel dismissed Stepien’s argument that his curiosity-driven use negated doping intent, stressing the focus on the substance’s prohibited status, not subjective motives.
The case also revealed procedural deficiencies in the initial hearing, where Stepien received short notice, limited preparation time, and restricted participation. The Polish Rugby Union’s disciplinary commission, with only two of four members present, upheld the violation and imposed a two-year suspension. During the CAS appeal, the Union failed to fully participate, complicating the proceedings. The panel confirmed its jurisdiction under WADC and IRB rules, admitting new evidence and ensuring procedural fairness. Stepien did not contest the lab findings but sought a reduced sanction under Article 10.4, arguing unintentional ingestion.
The panel rejected distinctions between direct and indirect intent, aligning with the Oliveira doctrine, which requires intent to relate to the prohibited substance, not the product. This approach, supported by cases like Qerimaj and de Goede, ensures legal certainty and fairness. The panel found Stepien’s actions negligent but acknowledged his prompt admission and cooperation, reducing his suspension to ten months. The ineligibility period was backdated to the sample collection date, as Stepien had already served over half the suspension.
The ruling underscores the stringent standards of anti-doping regulations and the risks of supplement use, serving as a cautionary tale for athletes. It balances strict liability with fairness, emphasizing the need for clear, predictable rules and athletes’ responsibility to verify supplement contents. The decision highlights CAS’s role in remedying procedural flaws and ensuring due process in doping cases.