The case centers on an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) involving the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the Sri Lanka Anti-Doping Agency (SLADA) concerning athlete Don Dinuda Dilshani Abeysekara. The athlete, a weightlifter, tested positive for mesterolone, a prohibited anabolic agent, during the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Sri Lanka. She accepted a provisional suspension and waived her right to have her B sample analyzed. SLADA initially imposed an 8-month suspension, but WADA appealed, arguing for a stricter sanction under the World Anti-Doping Code. WADA contended that mesterolone is a non-specified prohibited substance, and its presence in the athlete’s sample constituted an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of SLADA’s Anti-Doping Rules, warranting a standard two-year suspension unless mitigating factors applied. The athlete failed to explain how the substance entered her system, a requirement for reducing the sanction under Article 10.5 of the SLADA Anti-Doping Rules.
The case proceeded to CAS, where the sole arbitrator, Alexander McLin, reviewed the matter based on written submissions, as the athlete did not respond to communications. The arbitrator emphasized that under the World Anti-Doping Code, athletes must demonstrate the source of the prohibited substance to claim no fault or no significant fault, which could reduce their sanction. The Code allows consideration of factors like youth and inexperience when assessing fault, but the athlete provided no explanation for the presence of mesterolone or contested the findings. Consequently, the arbitrator ruled that the standard two-year suspension should apply, overturning SLADA’s reduced sanction. The decision underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and the importance of athletes proving the origin of prohibited substances to avoid full sanctions.
WADA argued that the athlete’s provisional suspension of seven months and eight days should be credited, leaving a remaining ineligibility period of 16 months and 22 days, along with disqualification of all competitive results from 27 April 2014 onward. The athlete had disclosed substances taken but none explained the presence of mesterolone. She claimed to have received vitamin B12 injections for hand pain but provided no further evidence. The appealed decision had considered her minor status and lack of experience as grounds for sanction reduction, though WADA contested this. The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction under Article R47 of the Code, as the SLADA ADR granted WADA a direct right of appeal without exhausting internal remedies. The appeal was deemed admissible, as WADA filed within the 21-day deadline per Article 13.2.3 of the SLADA ADR.
On the merits, the key issue was whether the SLADA ADR permitted a reduced ineligibility period. The athlete’s violation was uncontested, and mesterolone’s non-specified status precluded leniency under Article 10.4. CAS precedent requires athletes to prove how a prohibited substance entered their system to avoid fault, which the athlete failed to do. The CAS emphasized the athlete’s strict liability for substances in their body, rejecting the appealed decision’s reliance on the athlete’s minor status. Consequently, the CAS upheld WADA’s appeal, imposing a two-year ineligibility period, crediting the provisional suspension, and disqualifying all results from 27 April 2014. The decision reinforces the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and underscores the importance of athletes' responsibility in ensuring compliance with anti-doping rules.