The case involves an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) regarding a Slovak ice hockey player who tested positive for dehydrochlormethyltestosterone metabolites during the 2017 IIHF World Junior Championship. The player admitted to using Turinabol, a prohibited substance, but claimed he was unaware of its illegality, attributing his actions to pressure to improve performance and misleading advice from gym acquaintances. The IIHF Disciplinary Board initially imposed a 1.5-year suspension, finding the violation unintentional due to the player’s youth (18 at the time) and lack of significant fault, though he bore some responsibility for failing to verify the substance’s legality.
WADA appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the violation was intentional and warranted a four-year sanction. The CAS panel, comprising Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, The Hon. Michael Beloff QC, and Prof. Ulrich Haas, examined whether the player’s prompt admission under Article 10.6.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) justified a reduction. The panel determined the player failed to prove the violation was unintentional, as he knowingly ingested the substance without medical justification or proper research, disregarding the risk of doping. However, the panel acknowledged his prompt admission and cooperation, applying a six-month reduction under Article 10.6.3, resulting in a three-year-and-six-month suspension.
The panel also addressed the sanction’s start date, backdating it to March 15, 2017, due to procedural delays by the IIHF, which failed to impose a provisional suspension. This adjustment ensured the player was not penalized for delays beyond his control. The case highlights the complexities of anti-doping regulations, particularly in assessing intent and negligence, especially for young athletes. It underscores the balance between strict enforcement and fairness, considering mitigating factors like age and cooperation while upholding the integrity of anti-doping rules. The CAS partially upheld WADA’s appeal, modifying the sanction but maintaining the backdated period, emphasizing procedural fairness and the proper application of anti-doping standards.