The case of Alexandra Georgiana Radu, a Romanian swimmer, involved a complex legal dispute over a two-year suspension imposed by the Romanian National Anti-Doping Agency (ANAD) after she tested positive for dehydrochlormethyltestosterone, a prohibited non-specified substance. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reviewed the case, addressing key issues such as the admissibility of new evidence, conditions for reducing the suspension, and the commencement of the sanction period. The CAS panel ruled that documents submitted after the appeal brief were inadmissible without exceptional circumstances. It emphasized that for non-specified substances, the athlete must prove "no fault" or "no significant fault or negligence" to qualify for a reduction or elimination of the suspension. Radu failed to meet these criteria, as she suspected the pills given by her mother might contain prohibited substances but did not verify their contents, demonstrating a lack of diligence. The panel also rejected arguments based on her youth and lack of anti-doping education, noting that these factors did not justify reducing the standard two-year sanction. However, due to procedural delays exceeding eight months, the panel adjusted the suspension's start date to the sample collection date, June 21, 2013, to ensure fairness.
The case revealed that Radu, then 15, tested positive during the 2013 National Swimming Championship. She listed supplements on her doping control form but omitted the prohibited substance. Her mother admitted administering the substance, initially claiming it was for menstrual pain relief but later confessing it was purchased online to spite a coach. The mother's actions were driven by personal grievances and ambition, and she acknowledged knowing the substance would be detected. The Hearing Commission initially imposed a two-year ban without detailed reasoning, which the Appeal Commission overturned due to procedural violations, remanding the case for retrial. The second hearing upheld the ban, citing Radu's failure to request a confirmatory analysis or dispute the results.
Radu's appeal to CAS argued procedural violations, insufficient reasoning, and mitigating circumstances, including her minor status and lack of intent to enhance performance. The CAS panel, however, found her actions negligent, as she ignored suspicions about the pills and failed to consult professionals. The panel stressed that anti-doping rules apply equally to minors, and her age did not absolve her of responsibility. While sympathetic to her challenging circumstances, the panel concluded they did not meet the threshold for "no significant fault or negligence." The CAS upheld the two-year suspension but adjusted its start date due to procedural delays, underscoring the importance of timely adjudication. The case highlights strict liability in anti-doping regulations, the challenges young athletes face, and the influence of parental misconduct. The final decision maintained the suspension's duration but ensured its commencement reflected procedural fairness.