Aaron Sloan, a semi-professional baseball player, appealed a four-year ineligibility sanction imposed by Baseball Australia (BA) and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) after testing positive for D-methamphetamine, a prohibited substance, during an in-competition drug test on January 20, 2017. Sloan admitted to using methamphetamine and alcohol the night before the game but claimed he did not consume the substance within the 12-hour window preceding the competition, which would have placed his use out-of-competition. The case centered on whether Sloan’s violation was intentional, the burden of proof, and the admissibility of expert evidence.
The Sole Arbitrator, appointed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), outlined that for an athlete to prove their conduct was not intentional, they must demonstrate they were unaware their actions constituted an anti-doping violation or did not knowingly disregard the risk. The arbitrator emphasized that while corroboration is not legally required under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), the absence of supporting evidence weakened Sloan’s case. Sloan’s testimony lacked consistency, as he initially claimed to have slept continuously until the afternoon but later admitted to being "in and out of sleep," raising doubts about his credibility.
Expert testimony from Professor David Le Couteur played a pivotal role in the case. He concluded that the high concentration of D-methamphetamine and its metabolite in Sloan’s urine sample indicated recent use, likely within 12 hours before the game. The professor dismissed Sloan’s claim of prolonged sleep, citing the stimulant’s known effects of causing insomnia. Sloan failed to provide contradictory expert evidence, leaving Professor Le Couteur’s analysis unchallenged and persuasive.
The arbitrator found that Sloan had not met his burden of proof to demonstrate his violation was unintentional or that his use occurred outside the competition window. The inconsistencies in his testimony and the lack of corroborative evidence undermined his claims. The arbitrator also rejected Sloan’s request for an adjusted commencement date for his sanction, as he had not admitted to the violation as required under anti-doping rules.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the original four-year ineligibility period, starting from April 26, 2017, and dismissed Sloan’s appeal. The case highlights the stringent standards applied in anti-doping adjudications, the importance of credible evidence, and the challenges athletes face in contesting violations without sufficient proof. The decision reinforces the strict liability nature of anti-doping regulations and the athlete’s responsibility to substantiate their claims.