The case involves Indonesian swimmer Putera Guntur Pratama, who appealed against a doping sanction imposed by FINA after testing positive for methylhexaneamine (MHA) during the 2013 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games. The athlete claimed he unknowingly ingested the banned substance through a supplement, Jack3d, provided by his coach, who believed it enhanced performance. Initially, the Olympic Council of Asia disqualified the athlete and nullified his results. The Indonesian Anti-Doping Agency (LADI) later imposed a three-month ineligibility period, citing the athlete’s lack of intent to enhance performance under Article 10.4 of the FINA Doping Control Rules. However, FINA reviewed the case and imposed a stricter two-year ban, effective from July 2013 to June 2015, disqualifying all results post-July 2013 and forfeiting any awards. The athlete appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing he relied on his coach’s recommendation and was unaware of the banned substance in Jack3d.
The CAS panel examined procedural compliance and the interpretation of Article 10.4 of the World Anti-Doping Code, emphasizing the need for corroborating evidence to prove no intent to enhance performance. The panel distinguished between degrees of fault—significant, normal, and light—to determine the appropriate sanction period, considering both objective and subjective factors. The athlete’s defense centered on his lack of knowledge about the prohibited substance and his reliance on his coach. However, the panel found the athlete exhibited a significant degree of fault for failing to conduct basic due diligence on the supplement, which had been linked to multiple doping violations. Despite the athlete’s arguments about limited anti-doping education and reliance on his coach, the panel determined these factors did not sufficiently mitigate his fault.
The CAS partially upheld the appeal, replacing FINA’s two-year ban with an 18-month ineligibility period starting from July 2013. It also upheld the disqualification of all competitive results from the date of the positive test until the end of the ineligibility period, as mandated by FINA rules. The decision underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are responsible for any banned substances in their bodies, regardless of intent. The case highlights the importance of due diligence in verifying supplements and the consequences of negligence in anti-doping compliance. The ruling aligns with established anti-doping principles, ensuring fairness and consistency in enforcing sanctions. The athlete was ordered to bear arbitration costs and legal fees, and the appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the stringent standards applied in doping cases.