The case involves Jamaican high jumper Damar Robinson, who tested positive for the prohibited substance Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator (SARM S-22) during the 2013 Jamaica Athletics Administrative Association National Junior Championships. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) after the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) initially handled the matter. Robinson claimed the substance entered his system through a vitamin complex provided by his coach, Keith Wright, but failed to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. The CAS panel, comprising Jeffrey Mishkin, Markus Manninen, and Richard McLaren, ruled that Robinson did not meet the criteria for No Fault or Negligence or No Significant Fault or Negligence, emphasizing that athletes must exercise a high duty of care regarding substances they ingest. Despite Robinson’s youth and status as a high school student, the panel found his voluntary consumption of an unlabeled substance without further inquiry constituted negligence.
Robinson also argued he provided substantial assistance to anti-doping authorities by implicating his coach in another doping case, but the panel rejected this claim as it did not lead to any additional violations. Furthermore, Robinson violated his provisional suspension by competing in events organized by the National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA) and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which are not signatories to the WADA Code. As a result, the panel denied him credit for the provisional suspension period. The case underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, holding athletes accountable for substances in their bodies regardless of intent.
The panel ultimately imposed a two-year suspension, starting from the date of the award, and disqualified Robinson’s results in WADA-affiliated events from June 16, 2013, onward. However, it noted it lacked authority to enforce penalties on non-WADA Code-bound organizations like the NCAA and NJCAA. The ruling highlights the importance of athletes verifying supplements and substances they consume, even when provided by trusted individuals, and reaffirms the consequences of failing to meet anti-doping standards. The decision also reflects the complexities of jurisdictional differences between athletic governing bodies and the challenges in enforcing anti-doping rules uniformly across all competitions. The case serves as a reminder of the stringent expectations placed on athletes to adhere to anti-doping regulations and the limited leniency granted for claims of ignorance or trust in authority figures.