The case involves an international-level athlete, F., who appealed a decision by Athletics Kenya (AK) regarding an anti-doping rule violation. The athlete tested positive for terbutaline, a prohibited substance, during a competition in Prague on September 6, 2014. She had declared the use of a cough syrup, "Bro-Zedex," on her doping control form, which contained terbutaline, but claimed she was unaware it was prohibited. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reviewed the case and initially recommended a reprimand and disqualification of her results, considering her good faith and lack of intent to enhance performance. The athlete admitted to using the medication for a sore throat, apologized, and waived her right to analyze the B sample.
The case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) after the athlete argued she was deprived of a hearing before AK due to procedural errors, including incorrect email addresses used for notifications. The sole arbitrator, James Reid QC, noted these procedural defects but found they were remedied by the de novo hearing at CAS. Under IAAF Rule 40.4, if an athlete proves how a specified substance entered their body and demonstrates no intent to enhance performance, the sanction can range from a reprimand to a maximum two-year ineligibility. The arbitrator found the athlete’s declaration on the doping control form supported her claim of no intent to cheat. However, under IAAF Rule 32.2, athletes are strictly liable for ensuring no prohibited substances enter their bodies, and negligence does not absolve them of liability.
The arbitrator emphasized that an experienced athlete must take precautions to avoid doping violations. While the athlete’s negligence was clear, mitigating factors included her immediate admission, lack of intent to gain a competitive edge, and a clean prior record. The original six-month sanction imposed by AK was reduced to four months, starting from December 19, 2014, the date of the initial decision, rather than the sample collection date. This adjustment accounted for the delays in notification and the athlete’s time already served. Additionally, all results and awards from the Birell Prague GP were disqualified, as required by IAAF Rule 40.8, despite the athlete’s participation in subsequent races during the interim period.
The case underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations while highlighting the importance of procedural fairness and mitigating circumstances. The athlete’s reliance on a pharmacist’s advice and her efforts to check the syrup’s ingredients were considered, but her failure to consult a doctor or verify the substance against the Prohibited List demonstrated negligence. The final decision balanced the enforcement of anti-doping rules with the athlete’s lack of intent, resulting in a reduced sanction. The ruling also emphasized the need for clear communication in disciplinary actions and the athlete’s responsibility to adhere to anti-doping protocols. The appeal was partially upheld, reflecting a fair assessment of the violation and the athlete’s specific circumstances.