Fabien Whitfield, a 29-year-old beach volleyball athlete from Trinidad, faced a four-year suspension after testing positive for testosterone and related substances during an in-competition doping control in April 2016. The Federation Internationale de Volleyball (FIVB) imposed the suspension, classifying the substances as non-Specified under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), which carries a standard four-year penalty unless the athlete proves the violation was unintentional. Whitfield waived the analysis of his B sample and did not dispute the testing procedures. The FIVB Disciplinary Panel rejected his claim that the positive test resulted from a potassium supplement recommended by a tournament doctor, finding no scientific basis for this explanation. Despite acknowledging Whitfield’s part-time status and representation of a small federation, the panel upheld the mandatory penalty under FIVB regulations.
Whitfield appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing for a reduced sanction. He claimed the prohibited substances entered his system through contaminated horse meat consumed at his sister’s home in Trinidad. To support his case, he presented testimony from a butcher and a horse racing expert, along with an expert report suggesting contamination was plausible. However, the FIVB countered with contradictory testimony and expert analysis, arguing that the scenario was highly unlikely due to the timing and levels of the substances detected. The CAS panel found Whitfield’s evidence insufficient to prove the contamination claim on a balance of probabilities. While they acknowledged his credible testimony and lack of evidence suggesting intentional cheating, they emphasized the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, which holds athletes responsible for any prohibited substances in their bodies regardless of intent.
The CAS upheld the FIVB’s four-year suspension, rejecting Whitfield’s request for a reduced sanction or an earlier start date for the ineligibility period. The panel noted that his procedural actions, including contesting the sanction in hearings, did not constitute a timely admission of the violation. The suspension began on the date of the CAS award, with credit given for the time served under provisional suspension. The ruling underscored the rigorous application of anti-doping rules, highlighting the challenges athletes face in contesting violations and the high burden of proof required to mitigate sanctions. The case serves as a reminder of the strict standards governing anti-doping in sports, even in circumstances where the athlete’s intent is not clearly established. The final decision was issued on May 5, 2017, confirming the four-year ineligibility period.