The case involves a rhythmic gymnast, T., who was sanctioned by the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) after testing positive for Furosemide, a prohibited substance, during the 2001 Good Will Games in Brisbane, Australia. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reviewed the appeal, focusing on procedural errors and the athlete's responsibility for the banned substance. The CAS panel found that the failure to notify T. or her representatives about the B-sample analysis was a significant procedural error, compromising her rights to the extent that the B-sample results were disregarded. However, the panel concluded that the presence of Furosemide in T.'s body still constituted a doping offense, regardless of her awareness. T. admitted to taking a nutritional supplement called "Hyper," which had been approved by the Russian Federation but was later found to contain Furosemide when purchased from an untested source. The panel emphasized that athletes bear responsibility for the supplements they consume, given the known risks of contamination. T.'s negligence in using an untested version of the supplement was considered a mitigating factor but not enough to absolve her of liability. The panel upheld the FIG's decision to impose a one-year suspension followed by a probationary year, annulling her results from the 2001 World Championships. The CAS rejected T.'s appeal, affirming the sanctions while acknowledging the procedural flaw in the B-sample analysis. The decision underscores the strict liability principle in doping cases and the risks of using untested supplements.
The legal framework of the case was governed by Swiss law, as the FIG is based in Switzerland. The panel examined the FIG's doping control rules, which prohibit doping and impose sanctions for using banned substances like Furosemide. The FIG advocated for a strict liability approach, where the mere presence of a banned substance warrants sanctions, but the panel emphasized that the rules require proof of fault (intent or negligence) by the athlete. The panel referenced Swiss law and prior CAS rulings, which uphold the principle that sanctions must respect an athlete's right of personality, necessitating a presumption of fault that the athlete can rebut. The federation must prove the objective elements of the doping offense, such as proper sample collection and analysis, while the athlete can challenge the presumption by demonstrating lack of intent or negligence. The standard of proof is higher than typical civil cases, requiring "comfortable satisfaction" due to the serious consequences for the athlete. The panel noted that requiring federations to prove subjective fault would undermine anti-doping efforts, as athletes could easily deny responsibility. Thus, once objective elements are proven, fault is presumed, but athletes can rebut this with evidence, such as third-party sabotage.
The panel also addressed procedural aspects, such as the validity of testing procedures. Minor irregularities, like unsigned B-sample reports or delayed notifications, were deemed insufficient to invalidate results unless they materially affected reliability. However, the failure to inform the athlete or federation of the B-sample analysis date was a significant breach, as it undermined procedural fairness. Despite this, the panel found overwhelming evidence of the doping violation, including T.'s admission of taking the contaminated supplement and corroborating documentation from the Russian Anti-Doping Center. The panel concluded that the objective elements of the offense were met through alternative means, even if the B-sample analysis were disregarded.
T. claimed she had unknowingly consumed a counterfeit version of "Hyper," arguing force majeure, but the panel found her negligent for not ensuring the supplement's safety. While her young age (19) and lack of intent were mitigating factors, her negligence warranted sanctions. The panel upheld a reduced 12-month suspension, followed by 12 months of probation, instead of the maximum two-year penalty. The suspension was backdated to the initial test date (30 August 2001), but the panel adjusted it to account for a provisional stay granted by CAS, allowing T. to compete until the final decision. The suspension was set to run from the award's effective date (23 January 2003) until 8 April 2003. The CAS ultimately rejected T.'s appeal, upholding the FIG's decision and reinforcing the strict liability principle in doping cases while allowing for proportional sanctions based on fault. The ruling highlights the balance between enforcing anti-doping regulations and protecting athletes' rights.