The case involves Niksa Dobud, a Croatian water polo player and Olympic gold medalist, who appealed against a decision by the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) imposing a four-year ineligibility period for evading a doping test. The incident occurred on March 21, 2015, when doping control officers (DCOs) arrived at Dobud’s residence to conduct an out-of-competition test. Dobud had provided his whereabouts, indicating availability between 7:00 and 8:00 AM, but the DCOs arrived at 6:44 AM. Dobud’s wife initially claimed he was not home, and a male individual, disputed to be either Dobud or his brother-in-law, appeared at the door. The DCOs remained until 9:00 AM but were denied entry after Dobud’s wife threatened to call the police.
FINA’s Doping Panel found Dobud guilty of evading sample collection under Article DC 2.3 of the FINA Doping Control Rules, imposing a four-year ban, disqualification of results from March 21, 2015, and forfeiture of medals and prizes. Dobud appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing he was not present and that the DCOs arrived outside the designated testing window. The CAS panel examined the evidence under the standard of "comfortable satisfaction," stricter than a balance of probabilities but less than beyond reasonable doubt. The key issue was whether Dobud deliberately evaded the test. The panel noted that regulations did not require proving motive, only that evasion occurred. Dobud’s defense relied on witness testimony, but inconsistencies weakened his case, while the DCOs’ testimony was deemed more credible.
The CAS upheld FINA’s decision, emphasizing that the World Anti-Doping Code (WADA) does not permit reducing sanctions for evasion. The panel rejected Dobud’s argument about the DCOs’ early arrival, as athletes must be available within their designated window. The ruling reinforced strict adherence to anti-doping protocols, confirming the four-year ban and associated penalties. The case highlights the stringent requirements of anti-doping regulations and the high burden on athletes to comply with testing procedures.
Dobud’s defense included claims of mistaken identity and unintentional absence, but the panel found his explanations inconsistent and deceitful. The DCOs’ identification of Dobud was supported by their experience and lack of motive to fabricate, while Dobud’s family had a clear incentive to protect him. The panel dismissed concerns about identification reliability, noting physical differences between Dobud and his brother-in-law made confusion unlikely. Dobud’s clean record and lack of apparent motive were acknowledged but deemed irrelevant under the regulations, which focus on the act of evasion.
The CAS panel concluded that Dobud’s actions constituted evasion, upholding the mandatory four-year sanction. The decision underscores the strict enforcement of anti-doping rules, even in cases without premeditation or malice. The appeal was dismissed, and the FINA Doping Panel’s original decision was confirmed, maintaining the validity of the sanctions imposed. The case serves as a reminder of the severe consequences of failing to comply with anti-doping protocols, regardless of intent or circumstances.