The case involves Clara Victoria Patrugan, a medical doctor specializing in family medicine and ozone therapy, who appealed a lifetime ban imposed by the Romanian National Anti-Doping Agency (RADA) for violating anti-doping rules. The dispute centered on whether the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and whether Patrugan's actions warranted such a severe sanction. The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator András Gurovits, ruled that an arbitration agreement existed through the Romanian Kayak and Canoe Federation (RKCF) statutes, which incorporated national anti-doping rules recognizing CAS as the highest adjudicatory body. The panel found that Patrugan, by participating in activities with the RKCF and treating its athletes, had implicitly consented to the federation’s rules, including the arbitration clause.
Patrugan was accused of administering ozone therapy to athletes, which RADA classified as a prohibited method under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) category M1 (Manipulation of Blood and Blood Components). She also failed to report athletes' use of meldonium, a substance later added to the prohibited list. Patrugan argued that she was unaware ozone therapy was banned, as it was not explicitly listed, and that she learned of meldonium use when it was still permitted. She contested her classification as "Athlete Support Personnel," claiming she had no formal role with the RKCF and acted only as a general practitioner. However, the CAS determined that her treatment of athletes during training camps and receipt of allowances from the RKCF qualified her as such under Romanian law, regardless of her lack of a sports medicine degree.
The CAS upheld its jurisdiction, citing the RKCF statutes and Romanian Law 227/2006, which designated CAS as the final appellate body for doping disputes. On the merits, the arbitrator found Patrugan guilty of two violations: administering a prohibited method and failing to report a prohibited substance. While RADA sought a lifetime ban, the arbitrator applied the principle of proportionality, noting the absence of evidence that her actions endangered athletes or were part of a systematic doping scheme. Comparing the case to others, the arbitrator concluded that a lifetime ban was excessive for a first-time offense and reduced the sanction to six years of ineligibility, starting from April 3, 2017.
The decision highlights the strict liability of athlete support personnel under anti-doping regulations and the importance of compliance with reporting requirements. It also underscores the CAS's role in ensuring sanctions are proportionate to the severity of violations, balancing enforcement with fairness. The case clarifies that arbitration agreements in sports disputes can arise from the incorporation of national rules into private federation statutes, even when one party is a public entity. Ultimately, the CAS partially upheld Patrugan's appeal, amending the sanction while affirming her violations of anti-doping rules.