The case involves Ian Chan, a four-time Canadian Paralympian and co-captain of the Canadian Wheelchair Rugby Team, who appealed a doping violation decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Chan tested positive for oxycodone and fentanyl during an in-competition urine test in December 2014, both of which are prohibited substances under the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the Canadian Anti-Doping Program (CADP). Chan, a T4-T5 paraplegic with chronic pain, had been prescribed oxycodone for medical reasons but mistakenly believed he had a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE). He also admitted to purchasing unregulated oxycodone pills, which were laced with fentanyl, due to his belief that his prescribed dosage was insufficient amid personal and competitive struggles.
The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) issued a Notice of Doping Violation in March 2015, leading Chan to accept a provisional suspension. He later applied for a TUE, which was approved for future use but denied retroactively. While Chan admitted the violation, he sought a reduction in the standard two-year sanction, arguing his addiction and medical condition mitigated his fault. The Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC) reduced his ineligibility to 16 months, starting from the sample collection date.
Chan appealed to CAS, requesting further leniency under the "no fault or negligence" provision, citing his addiction and mental health struggles. The sole arbitrator, Prof. Richard McLaren, noted that while addiction or depression could justify eliminating sanctions, Chan provided insufficient evidence beyond his personal testimony. The arbitrator emphasized that each case depends on its facts, and Chan failed to demonstrate why his conduct warranted further leniency. The decision upheld the 16-month sanction, concluding that Chan’s deliberate actions—such as exceeding his prescription and obtaining unregulated pills—demonstrated a high degree of fault.
The case highlights the intersection of anti-doping regulations and mental health considerations, raising questions about how addiction and psychological conditions should factor into sanctions. Chan’s appeal was ultimately dismissed, with CAS confirming the 16-month ineligibility period. The ruling underscores the importance of proper TUE procedures and the challenges athletes face when self-medicating with prohibited substances, particularly those in leadership roles. The decision also reinforces the need for athletes to provide substantial evidence when seeking reductions in sanctions based on mitigating circumstances.