The case involves William Brothers, a Canadian elite swimmer, who appealed a decision by the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) after refusing to submit to an out-of-competition blood doping test on August 26, 2015. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reviewed the matter, focusing on whether Brothers' refusal was justified. Brothers, a member of the Canadian national swimming team, initially cooperated with doping control officers but later refused the test, citing health reasons after consulting his father, a physician, during a phone call. The doping officers recorded his refusal in the Doping Control Form, and Brothers retired from swimming shortly afterward on September 2, 2015.
FINA’s Doping Panel found Brothers guilty of an anti-doping rule violation under FINA Rules DC 2.3, imposing a four-year ineligibility period starting from August 26, 2015, and disqualifying all his results from that date. The panel concluded his refusal was intentional but not necessarily an act of cheating, attributing it to his father’s influence and his medical history. Brothers appealed to CAS, arguing his refusal was justified due to a panic attack and emotional distress linked to his mental health struggles, including depression and a history of severe illnesses like Guillain-Barré syndrome. He also claimed the doping control officers failed to properly inform him of the consequences of refusal, violating testing standards.
The CAS panel examined whether Brothers' refusal was compellingly justified, referencing precedents that such justification requires proof of physical, hygienic, or moral impossibility to comply. They also assessed whether his intent to cheat was present, noting refusal does not automatically imply intent. The panel considered mitigating factors, including his mental health and the influence of his father, but ultimately found his refusal intentional, as he retained cognitive control during the incident. However, the panel acknowledged the unique circumstances, including his documented psychological and medical conditions, and reduced his ineligibility period from four years to two, citing FINA Rules DC 10.5.2, which allows for reductions in sanctions under specific conditions.
The case highlights the tension between strict anti-doping enforcement and considerations of an athlete’s mental and emotional state. While the panel upheld the violation, the reduced sanction reflected a balance between regulatory compliance and individual circumstances. The decision underscores the importance of clear communication in anti-doping procedures and the need for case-by-case assessments in adjudicating violations. The ruling affirmed Brothers' ineligibility for two years, effective from August 26, 2015, dismissing all other claims.