The case involves an appeal by athlete Dorian Willes against a doping violation decision by the International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation (IBSF). Willes, a member of the USA Para-Skeleton Team, tested positive for methylhexaneamine (MHA), a prohibited stimulant, during the 2016 World Championships. The IBSF Doping Hearing Panel found him guilty of an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) and imposed a one-year period of ineligibility. Willes appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), challenging the validity of the sample collection process and arguing that his research efforts regarding the supplement he consumed should mitigate his sanction. The CAS Panel, composed of arbitrators Michael Beloff, Martin Schimke, and Luigi Fumagalli, dismissed claims against other anti-doping agencies, leaving IBSF as the sole respondent. Willes had ingested a supplement called Executioner before the competition but did not declare it. His doping test revealed MHA in both his A and B samples. He contested the sample collection process, alleging procedural deviations, and sought discovery of various documents, which the Panel largely dismissed as irrelevant or publicly available. The Panel ruled that minor deviations in the testing process, such as errors in naming the testing authority, did not invalidate the adverse analytical finding. It emphasized that an athlete’s duty to avoid prohibited substances is continuous, extending until the end of the awards ceremony, meaning any ingestion during this period remains the athlete’s responsibility. The Panel also rejected Willes’ argument for a reduced sanction based on no fault or no significant fault, noting that his reliance solely on the WADA Prohibited List app, without consulting other readily available sources, was insufficient to justify leniency. The CAS upheld the IBSF’s decision, confirming the one-year ineligibility period. The ruling reinforced strict liability in anti-doping regulations, stressing athletes’ responsibility to verify substances they consume and the limited grounds for challenging procedural irregularities in doping control processes. The case underscores the importance of thorough due diligence by athletes regarding supplements and the stringent application of anti-doping rules. The Panel also addressed issues such as the timing of notification for doping testing, the conduct at the Doping Control Station, and the chain of custody, finding no evidence that these affected the test results. Willes’ arguments regarding the scientific validity of MHA’s inclusion on the prohibited list were dismissed, as such challenges are not permissible under the WADC and ADR. The Panel concluded that Willes failed to demonstrate significant procedural breaches or scientific inaccuracies that would invalidate the doping violation, ultimately upholding the original decision and reinforcing the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations.