The case of German biathlete Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle involved an appeal against a doping violation decision by the International Biathlon Union (IBU) following her positive test for methylhexaneamine (MHA), a prohibited stimulant, during the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. Sachenbacher-Stehle argued that the substance entered her system unintentionally through a contaminated food supplement, "Schisandra," which she had listed on her doping control form. She sought a reduced sanction under Article 10.4 of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), which requires proving the substance was not intended to enhance performance, how it entered the body, and that it was a "Specified Substance." The IBU imposed a two-year ban, retroactive to the sample collection date, disqualifying her Olympic results.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reviewed the case, examining whether the athlete met the criteria for a reduced sanction. The panel acknowledged that MHA was a "Specified Substance" and accepted her explanation of accidental ingestion. However, it emphasized the need to assess both objective and subjective fault. Objectively, the panel evaluated what a reasonable athlete would have done, while subjectively considering Sachenbacher-Stehle's circumstances, including her experience and precautions. The panel noted her failure to thoroughly verify the supplement's contents, despite her awareness of contamination risks. While she relied on a nutritionist's advice and disclosed the supplement, she did not consult medical professionals or check the manufacturer's website, which advertised performance-enhancing benefits.
The CAS panel referenced precedents where athletes received reduced sanctions for similar inadvertent violations, ranging from reprimands to eight-month bans, depending on their diligence. It concluded that Sachenbacher-Stehle demonstrated a light degree of fault, warranting a six-month ineligibility period—longer than the standard for such cases due to her experience and the product's advertised effects. The panel rejected her request for further leniency under Article 10.5.3, citing insufficient evidence of "substantial assistance" in uncovering other doping violations.
Ultimately, the CAS partially upheld her appeal, reducing the sanction to six months but maintaining the disqualification of her competitive results during the ineligibility period. The decision reinforced the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, highlighting athletes' responsibility for substances they consume, even when unintentional. It underscored the importance of due diligence in supplement use and the need for case-specific assessments to balance fairness with anti-doping enforcement. The ruling clarified that while unintentional ingestion may mitigate sanctions, recklessness or negligence can still result in significant penalties.