The case involves Filip Radojevic, a young Serbian water polo player, who appealed a decision by the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) regarding an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV). The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld FINA's decision, imposing a two-year ineligibility period on Radojevic. The violation stemmed from the presence of pseudoephedrine, a prohibited substance, in his urine sample during the 2017 FINA World Men’s Junior Water Polo Championships. Radojevic had been prescribed Defrinol forte tablets by his doctor for respiratory issues, which contained pseudoephedrine. The concentration of the substance in his sample exceeded the permitted threshold, leading to an adverse analytical finding (AAF).
The CAS panel emphasized the principle of strict liability, stating that athletes bear personal responsibility for ensuring no prohibited substances enter their bodies, regardless of medical prescriptions. Radojevic’s claim that he relied on his doctor’s advice was dismissed, as athletes must independently verify the status of any medication against the Prohibited List. The panel also rejected arguments about pseudoephedrine’s lack of performance-enhancing effects, noting that its classification as prohibited alone necessitates diligence. While Radojevic’s youth and inexperience were considered mitigating factors, the panel found his failure to check the medication or report its use on the doping control form demonstrated significant negligence.
The panel ruled that backdating the start of the ineligibility period was not justified, as Radojevic’s prompt admission of the violation did not outweigh his lack of due diligence. The decision reinforced the strict liability principle, underscoring that athletes must actively seek information and take precautions to avoid violations. The ruling serves as a reminder that reliance on medical professionals does not absolve athletes of their responsibility to comply with anti-doping rules. The CAS upheld FINA’s original sanction, disqualifying Radojevic’s results from the competition and imposing a two-year ban.
Radojevic argued that the violation was unintentional, citing his amateur status, limited anti-doping education, and therapeutic use of the medication. However, the panel found his actions—such as failing to consult a sports physician or verify the medication’s ingredients—demonstrated carelessness. The panel also dismissed his request to reinstate his competition results, noting the importance of consistency in anti-doping sanctions to maintain fairness. The case highlights the challenges young athletes face in navigating anti-doping regulations but reaffirms the necessity of strict adherence to these rules. The CAS’s final decision underscores the balance between enforcing anti-doping policies and considering an athlete’s circumstances, ultimately concluding that Radojevic’s negligence warranted the imposed sanctions.