The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) between the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) regarding mixed martial arts athlete Demarte Pena. Pena tested positive for exogenous testosterone during a competition in November 2016, leading to a dispute over whether the violation was intentional. WADA appealed SAIDS' initial decision, which had imposed only a reprimand, arguing for stricter sanctions. The CAS panel, led by Sole Arbitrator Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, addressed key legal issues, confirming SAIDS' role as a respondent and upholding strict evidence submission rules under Article R56 of the CAS Code. The panel emphasized that late evidence submissions require exceptional circumstances, a stance supported by the Swiss Federal Tribunal.
Pena claimed his positive test resulted from contaminated supplements, Testoforte and Test Freak, which laboratory analyses confirmed contained prohibited substances. However, the panel found his explanations insufficient to prove lack of intent, as he failed to demonstrate convincingly that these supplements caused the adverse analytical finding (AAF). The panel noted that while identifying the source of a prohibited substance can help disprove intent, it is not mandatory. However, without such proof, establishing lack of intent becomes extremely difficult. Pena's arguments, including metabolic factors and weight-cutting practices, were deemed speculative and unsupported by expert evidence. The panel concluded that the calculated daily intake of the contaminant (Androstenedione) was too low to explain the AAF, and no scientific evidence supported his claims.
The panel ruled that Pena committed an intentional anti-doping violation under Article 10.2.3 of the Anti-Doping Rules (ADR), warranting a four-year ineligibility period. All competitive results from the date of the positive test (11 November 2016) were disqualified, including forfeiture of medals and prizes. The decision underscores the high evidentiary burden on athletes to disprove intent in doping cases and reinforces the principle that procedural fairness does not mitigate sanctions for intentional violations. The case highlights the challenges athletes face in proving contamination claims and the stringent standards applied in anti-doping adjudications.
WADA's appeal was upheld, overturning SAIDS' initial decision and imposing the full four-year sanction. The ruling serves as a reminder of the consequences of anti-doping violations and the importance of robust evidence to challenge such allegations. The case also reflects the complexities of supplement contamination claims and the difficulties athletes encounter in meeting the burden of proof required to avoid severe penalties. The CAS decision reaffirms the strict adherence to procedural rules and the high threshold for proving unintentional violations in anti-doping cases.