The case involves Aline de Souza Facciolla Ferreira, a Brazilian weightlifter and minor, who appealed a decision by the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) after being found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV). The violation arose from a positive test for Boldenone, a prohibited steroid, during the 2015 South American Senior, Junior, and Youth Championships in Lima, Peru. Ferreira argued procedural flaws in the testing process, including the absence of a Portuguese interpreter and lack of parental authorization, and claimed public disclosure of her case violated IWF rules. She maintained she had exercised due diligence by consulting medical professionals and cross-checking medications and supplements against the WADA Prohibited List, but the source of the Boldenone contamination remained unidentified. Due to financial constraints, she did not request a B-sample analysis.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel upheld the IWF's decision, ruling that Ferreira’s clean record, good faith efforts, and financial limitations did not sufficiently establish no significant fault or mitigating circumstances under anti-doping rules. The panel emphasized strict liability principles, reinforcing the four-year suspension. Ferreira later argued that the Boldenone resulted from unintentional cross-contamination in a Vitamin B12 supplement, citing low concentration levels and her history of careful supplement use. She also highlighted procedural fairness concerns, including financial barriers to accessing her B Sample and documents, and the severe personal and professional consequences of her provisional suspension.
The IWF maintained that Ferreira bore the burden of proving the violation was unintentional and dismissed her claims as speculative. The CAS examined jurisdictional and procedural matters, confirming its authority under the IWF Anti-Doping Policy (ADP) and the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC). Key provisions of the IWF ADP were highlighted, including the burden of proof, methods of establishing facts, and sanctions for ADRVs. The panel noted that a four-year ineligibility period applies unless the athlete proves the violation was unintentional, with potential reductions for no fault or negligence. Ferreira’s arguments, including her status as a minor and claims of procedural unfairness, were deemed insufficient to overturn the violation.
The panel referenced previous cases to illustrate the difficulty of proving lack of intent without concrete evidence of how the prohibited substance entered the body. It concluded that Ferreira’s contamination theory was unsupported and upheld the IWF’s decision, emphasizing the strict liability nature of anti-doping rules and the need for deterrence. The case underscores the challenges athletes face in contesting doping violations and the limited circumstances under which penalties may be reduced. Ultimately, the CAS affirmed the original ruling, rejecting Ferreira’s appeal and confirming the four-year suspension. The outcome highlights the stringent standards of proof in anti-doping cases and the high threshold for establishing mitigating factors.