The case revolves around Tomasz Hamerlak, a Polish Paralympic athlete, who appealed a doping violation decision by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC). The violation stemmed from an out-of-competition test in July 2015, which detected stanozolol metabolites, a prohibited anabolic steroid, in his urine sample. Hamerlak claimed the substance entered his system unintentionally through contaminated supplements provided by his coach and the Polish Association for Disabled. Despite his efforts to trace the source by testing multiple supplements and a cream, none showed traces of stanozolol. The IPC Anti-Doping Committee found him guilty under Article 2.1 of the IPC Code, imposing a four-year ineligibility period, citing his failure to prove the violation was unintentional or identify the source of the prohibited substance.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld the IPC's decision, emphasizing the principle of strict liability in anti-doping regulations. The panel rejected Hamerlak's arguments, including his claim of frequent doping controls and the promotional nature of the race in Lausanne, as irrelevant to establishing lack of intent. It underscored the athlete's personal responsibility under Articles 10.2 and 2.1.1 of the IPC Code, noting that reliance on supplements from his coach or federation did not absolve him of accountability. The panel found Hamerlak's efforts to trace the source insufficient, as he failed to provide conclusive evidence. The decision highlighted the athlete's burden to prove the violation was unintentional, which Hamerlak could not satisfy.
Hamerlak argued for a reduced sanction under Article 10.5.2 of the IPC Code, claiming no significant fault or negligence. He cited his precautions, such as checking product labels and relying on supplements provided by trusted sources, as well as his clean doping history. However, the IPC and CAS maintained that his extensive experience and lack of confirmed contamination source justified the four-year sanction. The panel dismissed his request for leniency, noting his risky behavior in consuming numerous supplements despite awareness of potential contamination.
The CAS panel concluded that Hamerlak acted with intent, given his knowledge of anti-doping rules and failure to demonstrate lack of fault. It upheld the IPC's decision, affirming the four-year ineligibility period under Article 10.2.1 of the IPC Code. The ruling reinforced the strict liability standard and the importance of athlete vigilance in supplement use. The appeal was dismissed, and the original penalty was confirmed, with Hamerlak bearing the arbitration costs. The case underscored the stringent enforcement of anti-doping regulations and the high burden of proof placed on athletes to contest violations.