The case involves an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the Comitato Permanente Antidoping San Marino (CPA) concerning judoka Karim Gharbi, who tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (DHCMT). The CPA initially imposed a two-year ineligibility period, but WADA argued for a four-year sanction, claiming the violation was intentional. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was tasked with determining whether Gharbi met the burden of proof to show the violation was unintentional and how the substance entered his body. Gharbi, an international-level athlete, tested positive during an out-of-competition test in July 2016. He claimed the substance entered his system through supplements purchased in Slovenia but failed to provide concrete evidence linking the supplements to the prohibited substance. Under anti-doping rules, the athlete bears the burden of proving the violation was unintentional by demonstrating how the substance entered their body on a balance of probabilities. Mere assertions of innocence or speculation about contaminated supplements are insufficient without corroborating evidence.
The CPA initially ruled that Gharbi’s violation was not intentional, citing his cooperation, first-time offense, and personal circumstances, thus imposing a two-year ban. WADA appealed, arguing that Gharbi failed to meet the burden of proof, making the violation intentional under the rules, which mandates a four-year sanction. WADA emphasized that without establishing the source of the substance, the violation should be deemed intentional by default. The CAS Sole Arbitrator, Murray Rosen QC, reviewed the submissions and upheld WADA’s appeal. The arbitrator found that Gharbi did not provide sufficient evidence to explain how the prohibited substance entered his body, as required by anti-doping regulations. Consequently, the violation was deemed intentional, and the original two-year sanction was overturned in favor of a four-year ineligibility period, effective from the date of the CAS award. Additionally, all competitive results from the date of the positive test were disqualified.
The case underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances in their system. It also highlights the necessity for athletes to provide concrete, verifiable evidence when claiming inadvertent ingestion, rather than relying on unsubstantiated explanations. The ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to anti-doping protocols and the consequences of failing to meet the required burden of proof. The final decision imposed a four-year ban on Gharbi, reduced by any time already served under provisional suspension, and mandated the forfeiture of all results, medals, points, and prizes obtained during the period of ineligibility. The arbitrator stressed that personal circumstances should not undermine the consistent application of anti-doping regulations, as doing so would harm the integrity of international sports and the fight against doping. The case serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements for athletes to prove unintentional violations and the necessity of enforcing sanctions uniformly to maintain fairness in sports.