The case involves an appeal by swimmer D. against a decision by the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) regarding a doping violation. In September 2001, D. tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone during the Mediterranean Games in Tunis. The Hellenic Swimming Federation initially imposed a lifetime ban and retroactive cancellation of all his competitive results due to a prior doping offense involving caffeine. The Supreme Sports Arbitration Council later reduced the penalty to a 20-month ban and a three-month retroactive cancellation of results. However, FINA referred the case to its Doping Panel, which imposed a four-year ban and cancellation of results from March 2001 to September 2002. D. appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), challenging FINA's jurisdiction and the severity of the sanctions.
D. argued that FINA's Doping Panel lacked jurisdiction, as the Hellenic Federation and the Supreme Sports Arbitration Council had properly applied FINA's doping rules. He also claimed he was not negligent, relying on his coach's assurances about administered substances, and referenced the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), which suggested a maximum two-year ban for first-time offenses. FINA countered that its Executive had discretion to review decisions if rules were misapplied and emphasized D.'s failure to prove the substances entered his body without negligence.
The CAS upheld FINA's authority to review the case, stating the Executive's belief in a misapplication of rules was not subject to judicial review. It reinforced the principle of strict liability in doping cases, holding athletes responsible for substances in their bodies regardless of intent. The CAS noted exceptions to the prohibition of reformatio in pejus, such as when statutory laws must be applied or if a counter-appeal is lodged. Ultimately, the CAS dismissed D.'s appeal, confirming the four-year ban and cancellation of results. The ruling underscored the importance of clean sports and athlete accountability, irrespective of third-party involvement.
The case also highlighted discrepancies between FINA's rules and the WADC, which prescribed a two-year sanction for first-time offenses. The Panel urged FINA to address transitional rules during its upcoming Congress to align with the WADC but lacked authority to enforce such changes. Despite these observations, the CAS upheld FINA's decision, emphasizing the need for harmonization with international standards while maintaining strict anti-doping measures. The decision reflects the evolving landscape of anti-doping regulations and the challenges of transitioning to new frameworks.
The case underscores the stringent application of anti-doping rules and the principle of strict liability, holding athletes accountable for prohibited substances in their bodies. It also highlights the role of international federations in ensuring compliance with doping regulations and the importance of aligning sanctions with global standards like the WADC. The ruling serves as a reminder of the balance between athlete rights and the integrity of competitive sports.