The case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) involved an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) regarding Colombian athlete Yenny Fernanda Alvarez Caicedo, who tested positive for the prohibited substance boldenone during the 2015 Junior Pan-American Championships. The athlete claimed the substance entered her system unintentionally through injections administered by her physiotherapist, but she failed to provide concrete evidence to support this claim, such as witness testimony or medical records. The IWF initially imposed a sanction equivalent to the time she had already served under provisional suspension (June 1 to November 22, 2015), effectively exonerating her. WADA appealed, arguing for a stricter four-year sanction, as the athlete did not meet her burden of proving the violation was unintentional under the WADA Anti-Doping Code.
The CAS panel conducted a de novo review, reevaluating all facts and legal issues without deference to the IWF’s initial decision. This approach ensures consistency and fairness in anti-doping cases. The panel emphasized that athletes must prove unintentional violations on the "balance of probability," meaning they must provide credible evidence showing how the substance entered their system. Mere speculation or unsupported claims are insufficient. In this case, the athlete’s failure to present corroborating evidence, such as testimony from the physiotherapist or medical documentation, weakened her defense. The panel concluded the violation was intentional and upheld the standard four-year ineligibility period, with credit given for the time already served under provisional suspension.
The panel also addressed the disqualification of competitive results under Article 10.8 of the WADA Code, which mandates annulling results from the date of the positive test until the start of the provisional suspension or ineligibility period. However, the panel found ambiguity in whether results obtained between the end of the provisional suspension and the start of the ineligibility period should be disqualified. In this case, the athlete competed in the Colombian national championships during this gap, and the panel ruled it would be unjust to annul these results, as it would effectively extend her suspension beyond the intended four years. The panel recommended WADA clarify this ambiguity in future revisions of the Anti-Doping Code.
Ultimately, the CAS panel upheld WADA’s appeal, imposing a four-year ineligibility period starting from the date of the award, with credit for the provisional suspension. The athlete’s results from the 2015 Junior Pan-American Championships were disqualified, including forfeiture of medals and prizes, but her results from the interim period remained unaffected. The decision reinforced the strict evidentiary requirements in anti-doping cases and the importance of de novo review to ensure fairness and consistency in enforcing anti-doping regulations. The ruling balanced strict enforcement with fairness, maintaining the integrity of sports while preventing unjust penalties.