The case involves Indra Gunawan, an Indonesian swimmer who appealed a doping violation decision by FINA (Fédération Internationale de Natation) to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Gunawan tested positive for methylhexaneamine (MHA), a prohibited substance, during the 2013 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games. The substance was found in a supplement called Jack3d, which Gunawan claimed he took unknowingly under his coach’s guidance. The central issues were whether Gunawan intended to enhance his performance and the degree of fault in his actions. The CAS panel examined procedural aspects, including the timely filing of the appeal and the athlete’s waiver of B-sample testing, as well as the application of anti-doping rules, particularly Article 10.4 of the FINA Doping Control Rules, which allows for reduced sanctions if the athlete proves no intent to enhance performance. The panel emphasized the need for corroborating evidence beyond the athlete’s testimony to establish this lack of intent.
Initially, the Indonesian Anti-Doping Agency (LADI) reduced Gunawan’s standard two-year ban to three months, citing his lack of knowledge about the banned substance and the fact that he did not use it during competition. However, FINA later imposed a stricter two-year ban, disqualifying all results after the positive test and requiring forfeiture of medals and prizes. FINA rejected Gunawan’s argument for reduced sanctions, stating he failed to demonstrate "utmost caution" to avoid prohibited substances. Gunawan appealed to CAS, but his initial submission was incomplete, missing required documents. CAS granted an extension, and the appeal proceeded with written submissions, as both parties agreed to forgo a hearing.
The CAS panel affirmed its jurisdiction under FINA’s rules, which allow appeals for international-level doping cases. It reviewed the case de novo, examining both procedural and substantive issues. On the merits, the panel found that Gunawan had no intent to enhance performance, as he relied on his coach and was unaware of the supplement’s contents. However, the panel concluded he demonstrated significant fault by failing to research the supplement, which was widely known to contain banned substances. Despite mitigating factors like limited anti-doping education and reliance on his coach, the panel imposed an 18-month ineligibility period, effective from July 1, 2013, and disqualified all competitive results during that time, including forfeiture of medals and prizes.
The ruling underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping cases, where athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances in their bodies, regardless of intent. It also highlights the importance of due diligence by athletes in verifying supplement safety and the consequences of negligence. The CAS decision replaced FINA’s original ruling, balancing the circumstances while upholding the integrity of competitive sports. The case clarifies jurisdictional authority in doping sanctions, affirming FINA’s role in international competitions, and emphasizes the high burden on athletes to prove they took all possible precautions to avoid prohibited substances.