The case revolves around an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) concerning American sprinter Gil Roberts, who tested positive for probenecid, a prohibited substance, during an out-of-competition test in March 2017. The initial ruling by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) found Roberts not at fault, concluding that the substance entered his system through kissing his girlfriend, Rebecca Salazar, who had unknowingly consumed medication containing probenecid while traveling in India. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed this decision, arguing that Roberts failed to prove the source of the substance and did not exercise sufficient caution, seeking a two-year suspension and disqualification of his competitive results from March to June 2017.
The CAS panel upheld the AAA's decision, emphasizing that Roberts met the required standard of proof by demonstrating that the ingestion of probenecid was more likely than not due to the specific scenario he described. The panel found Roberts' explanation plausible, noting that he could not have foreseen this indirect means of ingestion and thus acted without fault or negligence. Key to the decision was the credibility of Roberts and Salazar's testimonies, as well as the lack of evidence suggesting a deliberate conspiracy or fabrication. The panel also considered the scientific evidence, which, while inconclusive, did not definitively disprove Roberts' claim. Laboratory tests confirmed the presence of probenecid in the remaining capsule Salazar had, though the exact quantity and transfer mechanism were debated by expert witnesses.
WADA's arguments were rejected, as the panel concluded that Roberts only needed to show one plausible explanation was more likely than not (a 51% probability) and that he could not reasonably be expected to foresee such an unusual means of contamination. The panel also dismissed WADA's suggestion that Roberts fabricated the story, noting the lack of motive and the consistency of the witnesses' accounts. The decision underscored the balance of probability standard in doping cases and the importance of context in assessing an athlete's culpability.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the AAA's finding of no fault or negligence, reinforcing that athletes are not liable for violations resulting from truly unforeseeable circumstances. The ruling highlighted the challenges of proving intent or negligence in doping cases, particularly when trace amounts of prohibited substances are involved and the explanations are contested. The panel's decision affirmed the principle that athletes should not be penalized for violations arising from scenarios they could not reasonably anticipate or control.