The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on November 5, 2015, in a case involving the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the Czech Anti-Doping Committee (CADC), and athlete Remigius Machura Jr. The case revolved around allegations that Machura violated anti-doping regulations by refusing to submit to an out-of-competition doping test on February 11, 2015. The dispute arose after CADC initially charged Machura with a violation but later withdrew the charge, citing procedural errors, and allowed him to return to competition without restrictions. WADA appealed this decision, arguing that Machura had intentionally evaded testing and should face sanctions, including an eight-year ineligibility period due to a prior doping violation.
The sole arbitrator, Prof. Martin Schimke, examined several key legal issues, including whether CADC’s communication qualified as an appealable decision, the applicability of the principle of lis pendens (which prevents duplicate proceedings), and the conditions for retired athletes returning to competition. The arbitrator ruled that CADC’s withdrawal of charges constituted a formal decision under CAS rules, as it affected Machura’s legal status, and that WADA’s appeal was admissible since no other party had challenged CADC’s decision. The arbitrator also dismissed CADC’s argument that pending proceedings for a suspension reduction prevented further prosecution, clarifying that the two proceedings involved distinct legal matters.
On the merits, the arbitrator found that Machura was subject to CADC’s testing authority as of January 23, 2014, when he notified CADC of his intent to resume competitive activity. The arbitrator determined that Machura’s refusal to submit to sample collection constituted an intentional violation of anti-doping rules under Article 2.3, as he failed to provide evidence justifying his refusal. Given Machura’s prior violation involving human growth hormone, the arbitrator applied Article 10.7.1 of the anti-doping regulations, which mandates stricter penalties for repeat offenders. The options included six months, half the period of the first violation, or twice the penalty for the second violation treated as a first offense. Since the standard penalty for an intentional violation was four years, the arbitrator imposed an eight-year ineligibility period, effective from the notification of the award.
The decision underscored the importance of strict adherence to anti-doping regulations, particularly for athletes returning from suspension. It reinforced the principle that athletes must comply with testing requirements regardless of pending proceedings and clarified that refusal to submit to testing is presumed intentional unless proven otherwise. The ruling also highlighted WADA’s authority to appeal decisions by national anti-doping organizations and the procedural rigor required in such cases. Ultimately, the arbitrator upheld WADA’s appeal, set aside CADC’s decision to exonerate Machura, and imposed the eight-year sanction, dismissing all other relief requests. The case serves as a precedent for handling similar disputes and emphasizes the consequences of non-compliance with anti-doping rules.