The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding an anti-doping rule violation by Greek basketball player Olga Chatzinikolaou. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the International Basketball Federation (FIBA) appealed a decision by the Hellenic National Council for Combating Doping (ESKAN), which had cleared the athlete of sanctions after she tested positive for cocaine metabolites during an in-competition doping control in March 2017. Cocaine is a prohibited stimulant under the WADA Prohibited List. ESKAN initially accepted the athlete’s claim that the positive result was due to passive inhalation at a social gathering more than 12 hours before the game, but WADA and FIBA challenged this, arguing she failed to prove the unintentional nature of the ingestion.
The case proceeded to CAS, where the standard of proof required to rebut an intentional anti-doping violation was clarified. The athlete needed to demonstrate, on a balance of probability (at least 51% likelihood), that the substance entered her system unintentionally. The proceedings involved procedural steps, including sample retesting at the Lausanne Laboratory, which yielded slightly different results. The athlete raised concerns about testing discrepancies but participated in the arbitration. A sole arbitrator, Jacques Radoux, evaluated the evidence and legal arguments, ultimately upholding WADA and FIBA’s appeal. The arbitrator imposed a four-year ineligibility period, overturning ESKAN’s decision and reinforcing the strict liability principle in anti-doping cases.
The athlete’s defense relied on expert testimony suggesting metabolite ratios indicated passive inhalation, but this was dismissed due to unproven factual circumstances. WADA and FIBA argued the metabolite concentrations were consistent with recent use, undermining her claim. The arbitrator found the athlete’s explanations insufficient, as she provided no concrete evidence, such as witness testimonies or corroborating tests, to substantiate her passive inhalation claim. The ruling emphasized that mere speculation or protestations of innocence are inadequate to rebut the presumption of intentional use.
The CAS decision highlighted the stringent evidentiary standards in anti-doping cases and the athlete’s responsibility to ensure no prohibited substances enter their body. The four-year ineligibility period was imposed, with credit given for time served under provisional suspension. The ruling underscored the importance of intent in anti-doping violations and the necessity of imposing appropriate sanctions to uphold sports integrity. The original decision by ESKAN was annulled, and all other motions or requests for relief were dismissed. The suspension began on the date of the award’s notification, 31 May 2018, marking the conclusion of a case that clarified the burden of proof for athletes contesting anti-doping violations.