The case involves Alex Schwazer, an Italian racewalker and Olympic gold medalist, who appealed against a doping violation decision by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the Italian National Anti-Doping Organization (NADO Italia), the Italian Athletics Federation (FIDAL), and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel issued its award on 30 January 2017, addressing Schwazer's positive test for exogenous testosterone, a prohibited substance, detected in a urine sample collected on 1 January 2016. The sample was initially cleared but later flagged as abnormal during a re-analysis prompted by irregularities in Schwazer's steroid profile. The Cologne Laboratory confirmed the presence of the prohibited substance in both the A and B samples.
Schwazer, who had previously served a doping ban for EPO use in 2012, contested the validity of the test results, arguing procedural flaws in the chain of custody, sample handling, and laboratory procedures. He claimed breaches of confidentiality, inconsistencies in documentation, and potential tampering or sabotage. Schwazer presented expert testimony suggesting the testosterone levels in his sample did not align with intentional doping and highlighted his voluntary participation in extensive anti-doping measures. However, the CAS panel ruled that the burden of proof rested on Schwazer to demonstrate any departures from anti-doping standards that could have reasonably caused the adverse finding. The panel found no evidence of manipulation or conspiracy against Schwazer, attributing delays in testing and notification to administrative and technical challenges rather than malice.
The panel emphasized the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances found in their samples regardless of intent. Schwazer failed to provide sufficient evidence to invalidate the test results or explain how the substance entered his system, precluding any reduction or elimination of his sanction under the "No Fault or Negligence" or "No Significant Fault or Negligence" provisions. The panel upheld an eight-year ineligibility period, as this was Schwazer's second offense, and disqualified all competitive results obtained from 1 January 2016. The sanction commenced on the date of the award, with credit given for the provisional suspension period starting on 8 July 2016.
The case underscores the stringent requirements athletes must meet to challenge adverse findings and the limited grounds for reducing sanctions under the World Anti-Doping Code. The panel's decision reaffirmed the importance of adhering to international anti-doping standards and the rigorous scrutiny applied to doping violations, particularly for athletes with prior offenses. Schwazer's claims of sabotage and procedural breaches were deemed speculative, lacking concrete evidence to undermine the reliability of the test results. The ruling highlights the challenges athletes face in contesting doping allegations and the high burden of proof required to overturn sanctions. Ultimately, the panel dismissed Schwazer's appeal, upholding the original sanctions and reinforcing the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations in competitive sports.