The case revolves around Cole Henning, a South African mixed martial arts fighter, who appealed a four-year sanction imposed by the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) for an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV). Henning tested positive for methylhexaneamine, a prohibited stimulant, during his first professional fight on July 11, 2015. While he acknowledged the violation, he contested the claim that he intentionally cheated, arguing that he unknowingly ingested the banned substance through a supplement, TNT-Mercury Napalm. The case was heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), with a sole arbitrator, Mr. Monty Hacker, presiding. Key legal issues included whether the violation was intentional, the burden of proof required to establish intent, and whether Henning qualified for a reduced sanction under the special assessment for specified substances. The arbitrator applied the "comfortable satisfaction" standard, a high level of certainty typically used in CAS cases, to evaluate intent.
The arbitrator found Henning’s conduct reckless, as he carelessly consumed supplements without verifying their contents, despite being aware of the risks of banned substances. The timing of ingestion—just before competition—further undermined his claim of unintentional use. The arbitrator rejected Henning’s argument for a reduced sanction under Article 10.2.3 of the SAIDS Rules, which allows for a presumption of non-intentional use for specified substances out-of-competition. The arbitrator concluded that Henning’s use was in-competition and performance-related, disqualifying him from the special assessment. The CAS upheld the four-year sanction, ruling that Henning’s actions constituted an intentional violation due to his reckless disregard for anti-doping rules.
Henning’s defense centered on his lack of awareness about anti-doping regulations and the contents of the supplements he used. His manager, Tanya Magardi, testified that neither she nor the fighters at their gym were initially aware of banned substances, though she later took steps to monitor supplement use after the violation. Henning argued that his inexperience and lack of education about anti-doping rules should mitigate his penalty. However, the respondent countered that Henning’s failure to disclose the supplement on his Doping Control Form and his inconsistent testimony demonstrated reckless disregard for his responsibilities. The respondent emphasized that Henning’s elite athlete status made his claimed ignorance implausible, given widespread awareness of anti-doping rules.
The case highlighted the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances in their bodies, regardless of intent. The arbitrator referenced precedents like Maria Sharapova’s case, where her sanction was reduced due to no significant fault or negligence, contrasting it with Henning’s lack of precautions. The inability of Henning and his manager to definitively identify the source of the prohibited substance further weakened his case. The arbitrator concluded that Henning’s reckless behavior implied an intention to cheat, justifying the four-year sanction. The decision underscored the importance of athlete diligence in avoiding prohibited substances and the serious consequences of negligent conduct in anti-doping cases. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the strict enforcement of anti-doping rules to maintain fairness in sports.