The case involves an appeal by Bulgarian swimmer Blagovest Krasimirov Bozhinovski against a decision by the Bulgarian Sports Arbitration (BSA) that found him guilty of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) for testing positive for Ostarine, a prohibited substance. The BSA imposed a four-year ineligibility period, which the athlete contested before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Anti-Doping Centre of the Republic of Bulgaria (ADC) and the Bulgarian Olympic Committee (BOC) were named as respondents. The case centered on interpreting the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), the procedural status of sports justice bodies, and the determination of intent and fault in doping violations, particularly for minors.
The CAS clarified that the WADC serves as an interpretative tool rather than having direct legal effect. It also ruled that sports justice bodies without autonomous legal personality cannot be separate respondents in CAS appeals; their procedural position must be tied to the sports organization they represent. Regarding sanctions, the CAS noted that an ADRV involving a non-specified substance like Ostarine typically results in a four-year ban unless the athlete proves the violation was unintentional. The case also explored the principle of confidence in statutory interpretation, focusing on the objective meaning a reasonable addressee would attribute to the text rather than the literal wording or drafter’s intent.
A key issue was whether a minor athlete must establish the source of a prohibited substance to prove lack of intent. The CAS concluded that minors are not strictly required to prove the source, as they are exempt from this requirement when establishing "no fault or negligence" or "no significant fault or negligence." Instead, the surrounding circumstances, such as credible testimony or evidence of unintentional use, should be evaluated to determine intent. The CAS emphasized the need to consider the athlete’s age and reliance on trusted figures like parents.
The athlete, a minor at the time, tested positive for Ostarine during an out-of-competition test. He claimed the substance entered his system through contaminated supplements provided by his father but could not conclusively prove this. The BSA’s decision was based on the undisputed presence of the substance and the athlete’s failure to establish its source. The CAS’s analysis highlighted the need for a nuanced approach in evaluating minors’ culpability, balancing strict anti-doping rules with considerations of their vulnerability and reliance on others.
The athlete argued that he acted without intent and exercised due diligence in selecting supplements. Expert testimony suggested the Ostarine concentration in his sample indicated unintentional ingestion, as the dose required to produce such levels was unlikely to be taken knowingly before a scheduled test. The athlete’s father, who provided the supplements, had checked them for prohibited substances but lacked medical expertise. The Sole Arbitrator found no intent to cheat, noting the athlete’s trust in his father and the family’s patriarchal structure, where the father made supplement decisions.
Under the RDCTCA, an ADRV involving a non-specified substance typically results in a four-year ban unless the athlete proves lack of intent, reducing the penalty to two years. The Sole Arbitrator concluded that minor athletes should not be mandatorily required to prove how a prohibited substance entered their system when demonstrating lack of intent. Instead, the focus should be on evaluating the overall circumstances. The athlete’s youth, reliance on his father, and lack of evidence suggesting intentional use supported a finding of no intent.
The Sole Arbitrator determined that while the athlete showed some diligence, it was insufficient for his age and competitive level. The fault was deemed to fall in the upper range of the 24-month scale, but a reduction was granted due to partial compliance with diligence requirements. The final sanction was set at 21 months, starting from the date of the provisional suspension (June 15, 2017). The CAS partially upheld the appeal, amending the original decision to impose a 21-month suspension and dismissing all other motions.
The case underscores the complexities of applying anti-doping regulations to minors and the importance of contextual assessment in determining sanctions. It highlights the balance between strict liability and fairness, particularly for young athletes who rely on trusted adults for supplement choices. The decision reinforces the need for athletes to exercise due diligence while recognizing the unique vulnerabilities of minors in anti-doping cases.