The case revolves around an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the Brazilian Superior Court of Sports Justice (STJD) regarding an anti-doping rule violation involving footballer Olivio Aparecido da Costa. The athlete tested positive for testosterone, a prohibited substance, during a competition in May 2016. He attributed the positive test to the use of Androgel, a prescribed medication for low libido, claiming he was unaware it contained testosterone and had consulted doctors. However, he failed to disclose his status as a professional athlete to the prescribing urologist. The STJD initially imposed a one-year suspension, citing no significant fault or negligence by the athlete. WADA appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing for stricter liability under anti-doping rules and seeking a four-year suspension as per FIFA's Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR).
The CAS proceedings highlighted several key principles. First, national federations like the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) are responsible for decisions made by their tribunals, akin to how states are liable for judicial rulings under international law. Second, athletes bear strict personal responsibility to ensure no prohibited substances enter their bodies, regardless of intent or negligence. The balance of probability standard requires athletes to prove their explanations for positive tests are more likely than not. The panel emphasized that athletes cannot shift blame to medical professionals, even if a doctor prescribed the substance, and that anti-doping rules must be applied uniformly, irrespective of an athlete’s education or cultural background.
The athlete’s defense—that he was unaware of the prohibited substance and relied on medical advice—was dismissed. The CAS found the athlete failed to meet his burden of proof under the balance of probability standard. The packaging of Androgel clearly indicated it contained testosterone, and the athlete’s claim of ignorance was insufficient to overturn the strict liability principle. The panel also rejected arguments about the athlete’s limited education, noting his 18-year professional career and repeated exposure to anti-doping procedures. The CAS upheld WADA’s appeal, imposing a four-year suspension and disqualifying all competitive results from May 11, 2016, onward.
The decision reinforces the strict liability framework in anti-doping regulations and underscores the importance of athletes’ personal accountability. It clarifies that ignorance or reliance on medical advice does not absolve athletes of responsibility, and federations are accountable for decisions made by their affiliated tribunals. The ruling sets a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the need for athletes to exercise due diligence in verifying the legality of substances they use. The case highlights the tension between athlete responsibility, medical advice, and the stringent enforcement of anti-doping standards, ultimately prioritizing the integrity of sports over individual circumstances.