The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding a doping violation by Kenyan middle-distance athlete Sharon Ndinda Muli. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed a decision by the Sports Disputes Tribunal of Kenya, which had imposed a one-year ineligibility period on the athlete after she tested positive for 19-norandrosterone and its metabolite 19-noretiocholanolone, prohibited substances under the WADA Prohibited List. The athlete claimed the substance entered her body inadvertently through medication for a heel injury but failed to provide concrete evidence, such as medical documentation or proof of prescribed medication, to support her claim. The Sports Disputes Tribunal reduced her sanction based on her cooperation, lack of intent, and personal circumstances, but WADA challenged this decision, arguing the athlete did not meet the burden of proof required under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC).
The CAS Sole Arbitrator, Prof. Jens Evald, reviewed submissions from WADA, the Africa Zone V Regional Anti-Doping Organization (RADO), the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK), Athletics Kenya (AK), and the athlete. The key issue was whether the athlete met the burden of proof to explain the source of the prohibited substance. The CAS emphasized that mere assertions of inadvertent ingestion without supporting evidence were insufficient. The arbitrator referenced prior CAS rulings, which established that athletes must provide actual evidence, not just speculation, to explain the presence of a prohibited substance. The athlete’s failure to substantiate her claims meant she could not prove the violation was unintentional, and the standard four-year sanction for non-specified substances applied.
The CAS upheld WADA’s appeal, overturning the Kenyan tribunal’s decision and imposing a four-year period of ineligibility, starting from the date of her provisional suspension on December 6, 2016. The athlete’s results from April 29, 2016, onward were disqualified, including forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes. The ruling dismissed any further requests for relief and underscored the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, which holds athletes accountable for substances in their bodies unless they can convincingly demonstrate lack of intent and provide credible evidence of the substance’s origin. The case serves as a precedent for similar doping disputes, reinforcing the principle that athletes must substantiate their claims with credible evidence to avoid sanctions.
The decision highlights the challenges in balancing anti-doping regulations with individual circumstances while maintaining the integrity of sports. The CAS proceedings followed standard arbitration procedures, with WADA filing its appeal and the respondents submitting their answers. The case was heard by a Sole Arbitrator, and the final award was issued on October 10, 2017. The outcome clarifies the application of anti-doping rules and the burden of proof in similar cases, emphasizing the necessity for athletes to provide credible evidence when contesting violations. The ruling reaffirms the strict evidentiary requirements for athletes to prove unintentional doping violations and the consequences of failing to meet these standards.