The case revolves around Ryan Bailey, an elite athlete who tested positive for the prohibited substance dimethylbutylamine (DMBA) during a bobsled competition in January 2017. The substance was traced to a pre-workout supplement called "Weapon X," which Bailey ingested without verifying its ingredients or checking its compliance with anti-doping regulations. Despite his extensive anti-doping education as a member of the USADA Registered Testing Pool since 2010, Bailey failed to take basic precautions, such as researching the supplement or reading its label. The American Arbitration Association (AAA) initially ruled that Bailey demonstrated no significant fault or negligence, imposing a six-month sanction. However, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing for a stricter penalty.
The CAS panel emphasized the high personal duty of care expected of elite athletes and found Bailey's conduct to be a marked departure from the required standards. They rejected arguments that his ADHD diagnosis or reliance on teammates justified a reduced sanction, noting that athletes with disabilities must still take appropriate measures to comply with anti-doping rules. The panel also considered cases of other athletes who tested positive for DMBA from the same supplement but lacked formal anti-doping education, resulting in proposed 16-month suspensions. In contrast, Bailey's failure to exercise any degree of care disqualified him from a reduced sanction.
The CAS overturned the AAA's decision, ruling that Bailey's actions did not warrant a finding of No Significant Fault. They imposed the standard two-year period of ineligibility, effective from the date of his sample collection (10 January 2017), with credit given for the provisional suspension he served. His competitive results from the relevant period were disqualified. The panel highlighted Bailey's extreme carelessness, particularly given his experience and access to anti-doping resources, and dismissed all other motions. The case underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and the high standard of responsibility imposed on elite athletes, reinforcing the severe consequences of failing to adhere to these obligations.