The case involves weightlifter Daria Goltsova, who tested positive for cocaine during the 2011 Youth World Championships in Lima, Peru. Goltsova admitted the presence of the substance but claimed it resulted from consuming "Mate de Coca" tea provided at her hotel, unaware it contained cocaine. The International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) Doping Hearing Panel (DHP) initially accepted her explanation, imposing a reduced six-month ineligibility period, citing no significant fault or negligence. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing for a stricter penalty and questioning the athlete's degree of fault.
The CAS panel conducted a de novo review, reassessing the legal and factual aspects of the case. It determined that procedural rules at the time of the appeal governed the process, while substantive rules from the time of the violation applied. The panel emphasized WADA's right to appeal, noting delays in notification by the IWF justified the timing of the appeal. The panel rejected Goltsova's claim of no significant negligence, stating athletes must ensure they do not ingest prohibited substances, especially when consuming unknown products. However, it acknowledged her youth, disadvantaged background, and lack of intent to enhance performance.
The panel found Goltsova could not establish no fault or negligence but concluded her fault was not significant. Under the 2012 Anti-Doping Policy (ADP), which applied the principle of lex mitior (favoring the milder penalty), the standard two-year sanction was reduced to one year. Due to substantial procedural delays caused by the IWF's failure to promptly notify WADA, the panel backdated the ineligibility period to the date of sample collection (May 13, 2011), crediting her with the six-month provisional suspension she had already served. This adjustment ensured fairness, as the delays had left Goltsova believing the matter was resolved and allowed her to resume competing.
The CAS panel upheld WADA's appeal, replacing the IWF DHP's decision with a one-year ineligibility period starting from May 13, 2011, and invalidating all competitive results during that time. The ruling reinforced strict liability in anti-doping cases, highlighting athletes' responsibility for substances they ingest, even unintentionally. It also underscored the importance of timely communication between anti-doping organizations and the need for athletes to exercise utmost caution. The decision balanced the rigorous standards of anti-doping regulations with fairness, considering Goltsova's circumstances and the procedural failures that prolonged the case. The case serves as a reminder of the consequences of unintentional violations and the critical role of procedural efficiency in anti-doping proceedings.