The case involves an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the Lesotho National Olympic Committee (LNOC) regarding Paralympic sprinter Sello Mothebe, who tested positive for the banned substances 19-norandrosterone and its metabolite 19-noretiochiolanone during an out-of-competition test in August 2016. The levels detected exceeded WADA thresholds, constituting an anti-doping violation. Mothebe admitted the violation but claimed it was unintentional, attributing it to flu medication taken during rainy weather. The LNOC panel accepted his explanation and imposed a reduced two-year ineligibility period instead of the standard four-year sanction for intentional violations. WADA appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that Mothebe failed to provide concrete evidence proving the source of the prohibited substances, as required by WADA rules. CAS jurisprudence mandates that athletes substantiate claims with credible evidence, not just assertions. Mothebe had also not disclosed the medication on his doping control form, further undermining his defense. WADA sought to overturn the LNOC decision, requesting a four-year ban, disqualification of all competitive results from the date of the violation, and cost reimbursement.
Despite multiple notifications, the respondents—Africa Zone VI Regional Anti-Doping Organization (RADO), LNOC, and Mothebe—largely failed to participate in the CAS proceedings. Only the LNOC partially engaged by signing the Order of Procedure, while RADO and Mothebe did not respond. The case proceeded based on written submissions, with WADA maintaining its position that Mothebe’s explanation lacked sufficient proof. The sole arbitrator, Clifford Hendel, evaluated whether the LNOC’s decision aligned with WADA’s anti-doping standards, particularly regarding the burden of proof in establishing the source of prohibited substances.
Under anti-doping rules, athletes bear strict liability for prohibited substances in their samples, meaning intent or negligence does not need to be proven for a violation to be established. The LNOC had the burden of proving the violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, while Mothebe was required to prove any mitigating circumstances by a balance of probability. Mothebe’s A Sample tested positive for 19-norandrosterone, exceeding allowable limits. He admitted the violation but claimed unintentional ingestion through flu medication or energy boosters recommended by his coach. The Lesotho-NADO Panel initially accepted this explanation and imposed a two-year ineligibility period, deeming the violation unintentional. However, WADA appealed, arguing Mothebe failed to provide concrete evidence. CAS agreed, noting his claims were unsubstantiated and he did not disclose the use of these products on his doping control form.
CAS ruled that Mothebe did not meet his burden of proof to show the violation was unintentional, as required under the LNOC Anti-Doping Rules. Consequently, the original two-year sanction was overturned, and a four-year ineligibility period was imposed, starting from the date of the initial decision (7 February 2017). All competitive results Mothebe achieved between 30 August 2016 and 7 February 2017 were disqualified, including forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes. The decision underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and the necessity for athletes to provide credible evidence when contesting violations. The ruling reinforces the expectation that athletes must exercise utmost caution to avoid ingesting prohibited substances, regardless of intent. The case highlights WADA’s role in enforcing uniform sanctions to uphold fairness in sports and the challenges in balancing athlete defenses with stringent anti-doping enforcement.