The case involves Serghei Tarnovschi, a Moldovan canoeist, who appealed a doping sanction imposed by the International Canoe Federation (ICF) after testing positive for GHRP-2, a prohibited substance, during an out-of-competition test in July 2016. Despite the positive test, Tarnovschi competed in the 2016 Rio Olympics, winning a bronze medal, though his post-competition test was negative. The ICF provisionally suspended him and later imposed a four-year ban, disqualifying all his results from the date of the positive test, including his Olympic medal. Tarnovschi argued that the positive result stemmed from a contaminated supplement, Explosin, which he had used since 2015, and claimed he had no intention to dope, citing previous negative tests. Laboratory tests on Explosin showed mixed results, with one sample contaminated and another clean, complicating the case. The ICF maintained that Tarnovschi failed to prove his lack of intent or significant fault, as required under their Anti-Doping Rules.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel reviewed the case, focusing on whether Tarnovschi met the burden of proving his lack of intent and whether disqualifying all his results was justified. Under ICF rules, athletes must provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of intentional doping, and Article 10.8 mandates disqualification of all competitive results unless fairness dictates otherwise. Expert testimonies were presented, with Tarnovschi's expert suggesting contamination was plausible, while the ICF's expert argued that GHRP-2 could easily be added to supplements, undermining the contamination claim. The panel found Tarnovschi's arguments insufficient, noting his lack of medical consultation for supplement use and the absence of definitive proof of contamination.
The CAS panel upheld the ICF's decision, concluding that Tarnovschi did not adequately demonstrate his lack of intent or significant fault. Consequently, his four-year ban and the disqualification of his Olympic medal and other results were confirmed. The case highlights the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes bear full responsibility for prohibited substances in their systems, regardless of intent. It also underscores the high evidentiary burden on athletes to contest doping violations, particularly when contamination claims are involved. The panel acknowledged the personal and national impact of the decision but emphasized that legal standards must prevail. The appeal was dismissed, and the ICF's original ruling was upheld in its entirety.