The case revolves around a doping violation involving Egyptian karate athlete Radwa Arafa Abd Elsalam, who tested positive for Ractopamine, a prohibited substance classified as an Other Anabolic Agent under the 2015 Prohibited List, during an out-of-competition test in August 2015. The Egyptian Anti-Doping Organisation (EGY-NADO) initially reduced her sanction from two years to six months, accepting her claim that the substance entered her system unintentionally through contaminated food, citing her young age and lack of significant fault. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed this decision, arguing that the athlete failed to meet the burden of proof required to demonstrate the unintentional nature of the violation. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was tasked with resolving the dispute, with proceedings overseen by a sole arbitrator, Lars Halgreen.
The athlete contended that Ractopamine was not explicitly listed in the Prohibited List and suggested it might have entered her body through contaminated meat consumed during Ramadan, as her family purchased imported meat from countries like Brazil. She provided receipts for meat purchases but failed to offer concrete evidence, such as testing results or documentation linking the meat to contamination. WADA emphasized the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, requiring athletes to prove, on a balance of probabilities, how a prohibited substance entered their system. The CAS panel ruled that mere assertions of contamination were insufficient without corroborating evidence, and the athlete’s failure to meet this burden meant the violation was deemed intentional under Article 10.2.1 of the EGY-NADO Rules.
The arbitrator rejected EGY-NADO’s attempt to introduce new evidence during the hearing, citing procedural rules, and upheld WADA’s appeal. The original two-year sanction was reinstated, with the period of ineligibility set to begin retroactively from September 21, 2015, the date of her provisional suspension. All competitive results from August 7, 2015, onward were disqualified, including forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes. The decision underscored the stringent evidentiary standards athletes must meet to avoid sanctions for unintentional violations and highlighted the challenges of proving contamination claims without substantial documentation. The ruling reinforced the principle of strict liability in anti-doping cases, emphasizing that athletes bear responsibility for substances in their bodies unless they can provide compelling evidence to the contrary. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of thorough documentation and adherence to procedural rules in anti-doping disputes.