The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) concerning eleven Bulgarian weightlifters who tested positive for stanozolol, a prohibited anabolic agent. The athletes appealed against sanctions imposed by the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF), arguing that the substance entered their systems unintentionally through a contaminated supplement called Trybest. The CAS panel, composed of Judge James Reid QC, Mr. Luc Argand, and Prof. Ulrich Haas, examined the case under Swiss law and the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code (WADC). Key issues included the athletes' request for a stay of proceedings due to alleged criminal investigations, the burden of proof in doping cases, and the applicability of reduced sanctions under the "no significant fault or negligence" provision. The panel rejected the stay request, noting Swiss law does not mandate such suspensions when the arbitration panel can assess the evidence.
Under anti-doping rules, the athletes bore the burden of proving the violation was unintentional and that they bore no significant fault or negligence. The standard of proof was the balance of probabilities. While the athletes suggested sabotage as a theory, they failed to provide sufficient evidence of deliberate introduction of the prohibited substance. However, if the source was a contaminated supplement, they could benefit from a reduced sanction. The 2015 WADC stipulates a standard four-year ineligibility for first-time violations, but if an athlete proves no significant fault or negligence and the substance came from a contaminated product, the sanction could range from a reprimand to a maximum of two years. The panel emphasized that compliance with a team doctor’s instructions or vague declarations on doping control forms does not absolve athletes of responsibility. Athletes must exercise extreme caution with supplements and ensure proper documentation.
The athletes had declared various vitamins and amino acids on their doping control forms but omitted Trybest, which was later suspected of contamination. Laboratory tests confirmed stanozolol metabolites in all samples, leading to provisional suspensions. The B-sample analyses corroborated the findings. The athletes argued the substance entered their systems unintentionally, possibly through Trybest, but the panel found insufficient evidence to fully exonerate them. The CAS panel upheld the IWF’s decision but adjusted sanctions based on the degree of fault, applying the no significant fault or negligence provision where applicable. The ruling underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations while acknowledging mitigating circumstances in cases of inadvertent ingestion through contaminated products.
The athletes' defense centered on their lack of intent or negligence, emphasizing the improbability of performance enhancement given minimal stanozolol levels and irregular distribution in the capsules. They contended the contamination was external and unforeseeable, warranting the elimination of sanctions. The IWF acknowledged the presence of stanozolol in Trybest but disputed sabotage, suggesting commercial motives might explain the contamination. The IWF argued that while the athletes' prolonged use of Trybest without prior issues was mitigating, their failure to disclose the supplement was an aggravating factor.
The panel recognized Trybest had been used for a long period without prior issues, which weighed in the athletes' favor. However, it stressed that past safety did not justify negligence, particularly since Trybest was a niche product with questionable quality control. The panel concluded the athletes bore some responsibility, warranting reduced but still significant sanctions. For first-time offenders, the penalty was set at nine months of ineligibility, while repeat offenders received 18 months. Provisional suspensions were accounted for, and competitive results between testing and suspension were disqualified. The appeal was dismissed, and the IWF Hearing Panel's decision was upheld. The CAS ruling reinforced the importance of strict adherence to anti-doping regulations and the responsibility of athletes to ensure the safety and proper declaration of supplements.