The case of Maria Sharapova before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) involved her appeal against a doping violation decision by the International Tennis Federation (ITF). Sharapova tested positive for meldonium, a prohibited substance, during the 2016 Australian Open. The central issue was whether she bore "No Significant Fault or Negligence" (NSF), which could reduce her sanction. The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, Mr. Jeffrey Benz, and Mr. David Rivkin, examined the principles of NSF and the delegation of anti-doping responsibilities. Sharapova admitted the violation but claimed it was unintentional, as she had been taking meldonium (marketed as Mildronate) for medical reasons and was unaware it had been added to the prohibited list in 2016. She argued that her reliance on her team, including her agent and father, to handle anti-doping compliance justified a reduction in her suspension.
The panel acknowledged that high-level athletes like Sharapova may delegate compliance tasks due to their demanding schedules but emphasized that they must still exercise oversight. Sharapova's failure to monitor her team's actions or disclose her meldonium use on doping control forms undermined her NSF claim. The ITF, enforcing the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP) aligned with the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), maintained that athletes bear personal responsibility for ensuring no prohibited substances enter their bodies. The case highlighted the balance between delegation and accountability, stressing that sanctions must reflect the degree of fault.
Sharapova's defense centered on her lack of intent to cheat, her clean disciplinary record, and her reliance on medical advice and her team for compliance. She criticized WADA for insufficiently notifying athletes, particularly those from Eastern Europe, about meldonium's prohibition. The ITF countered that Sharapova failed to take personal responsibility, delegating compliance to an unqualified agent without proper oversight. They also noted her use of meldonium for performance-related benefits, such as energy and recovery, increasing her obligation to verify its status.
The CAS panel ultimately reduced Sharapova's initial two-year suspension to 15 months, acknowledging her lack of intent to cheat but finding her negligent in failing to verify the substance's status. The decision underscored that while delegation is permissible, athletes cannot entirely absolve themselves of responsibility. The ruling serves as guidance for future cases, clarifying the nuanced application of NSF and the importance of context in assessing fault. Sharapova's results from the 2016 Australian Open were disqualified, and her suspension period began on January 26, 2016. The case concluded with a partial success for Sharapova, as her suspension was shortened, but the disqualification of her Australian Open results remained in place. The decision reinforced the principle that athletes must actively ensure compliance with anti-doping regulations, even when delegating tasks to others.