The case involves an appeal by the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) against a decision by the Georgian Anti-Doping Agency (GADA) and the Eastern Europe Regional Anti-Doping Organisation (RADO) concerning swimmer Irakli Bolkvadze, who tested positive for stanozolol, a prohibited anabolic steroid, during an out-of-competition test in July 2016. The B sample confirmed the presence of the substance. The athlete voluntarily submitted hair samples and food supplements for testing, which did not reveal stanozolol. GADA's Disciplinary Committee initially imposed a two-year ineligibility period, ruling the violation unintentional. FINA appealed, but the Appeal Commission upheld the decision. FINA then brought the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the athlete failed to prove the violation was unintentional. The CAS panel, led by a sole arbitrator, emphasized that mere claims of innocence or inadvertent ingestion are insufficient. Athletes must provide concrete evidence, such as proof a specific supplement contained the prohibited substance. While rare, lack of intent might be demonstrated without identifying the source under exceptional circumstances, but absent such evidence, the violation is presumed intentional. The arbitrator noted the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code incorporates proportionality, balancing breach severity with sanctions, eliminating the need for further assessment by appellate bodies. The athlete requested DNA testing, but FINA opposed this, citing compliance with standard procedures. The CAS panel proceeded without a hearing, as the parties did not unanimously request one. The arbitrator upheld FINA's appeal, concluding the athlete failed to meet the burden of proof for an unintentional violation. The decision underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and the high evidentiary threshold athletes must overcome to avoid sanctions. The case reaffirms that establishing the origin of a prohibited substance is critical in demonstrating lack of intent. The athlete argued the violation was unintentional, citing supplement analysis, hair samples, and suspicion of sabotage, but the arbitrator found these arguments insufficient. The negative hair analysis was deemed irrelevant, and the sabotage claim lacked evidence. The athlete's professional success and clean record were not considered concrete proof. The Sole Arbitrator referenced precedents requiring athletes to meet a high evidentiary standard, ruling the violation intentional and imposing a four-year ineligibility period. Competitive results from the sample collection date were disqualified, including forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes. The ineligibility period started from the provisional suspension date, with credit for time served. The CAS upheld FINA's appeal, setting aside the earlier decision and imposing the four-year suspension and disqualification of results. All other relief requests were dismissed. The ruling highlights the strict liability principle and the necessity for athletes to provide substantial evidence to counter positive test results.