The case involves Mauricio Fiol Villanueva, a Peruvian swimmer who tested positive for Stanozolol, a prohibited substance, during the 2015 Pan-American Games. The Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) found him guilty of an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) and imposed a four-year ban, disqualifying his results and forfeiting any medals, points, and prizes. The athlete appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing he did not intentionally ingest the substance and sought to prove his lack of intent to cheat. He claimed the substance might have entered his system through contaminated horse meat sold as beef in Peru, though he provided no concrete evidence to support this theory. He also submitted a polygraph test and hair sample analysis, but these were deemed insufficient to establish his innocence.
FINA maintained that the athlete committed an ADRV and upheld the sanction, emphasizing that the presence of Stanozolol, a steroid commonly used for doping, suggested intentional use. They dismissed the polygraph and hair analysis as unreliable and rejected the contaminated meat theory as speculative. The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from the UK, Luxembourg, and Israel, reviewed the case and acknowledged that while identifying the source of a prohibited substance is important, it is not an absolute requirement to prove lack of intent. However, the panel found the athlete’s evidence unconvincing and upheld the four-year ban, reinforcing the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, which holds athletes responsible for any prohibited substances in their bodies unless they can convincingly prove otherwise.
The case also examined provisions for reducing sanctions, such as proving the substance came from a contaminated product or promptly admitting the violation. The athlete argued for a reduced sanction under FINA DC 10.6.3, citing his cooperation, but the panel ruled against it, noting he contested the violation, leading to lengthy proceedings. The decision highlighted the stringent standards in anti-doping cases and the challenges athletes face in contesting violations without concrete evidence. The panel emphasized that the four-year sanction under WADC 2015 was proportionate, reflecting the global consensus on stricter penalties to deter doping. The ruling underscored the importance of maintaining fair competition and the integrity of sports, ultimately dismissing the athlete’s appeal and upholding the original sanction.
The case illustrates the complexities of anti-doping regulations, balancing strict liability with considerations of intent and mitigating factors. It also demonstrates the high evidentiary burden on athletes to overturn sanctions, particularly when the source of a prohibited substance remains unverified. The CAS decision reaffirmed the necessity of stringent anti-doping measures to preserve the credibility of competitive sports, ensuring a level playing field for all athletes. The outcome serves as a reminder of the severe consequences of doping violations and the rigorous standards applied in adjudicating such cases.