Bernadette Coston, a South African international field hockey player, was involved in a legal dispute with the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) after testing positive for methylhexanamine, a prohibited stimulant, during a competition in December 2017. The initial SAIDS Tribunal found her guilty of an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) and imposed a four-year ineligibility period, requiring her to forfeit all results, medals, and prizes from the event. Coston appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that she did not intentionally ingest the substance and that her brother had unknowingly contaminated her supplement with another product containing the prohibited substance. She claimed she only became aware of this contamination after the initial SAIDS decision and maintained she had taken all necessary precautions to ensure her supplements were safe.
The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Mohamed Abdel Raouf, reviewed the case and confirmed the ADRV under Article 2.1 of the SAIDS Anti-Doping Rules, as the presence of the prohibited substance in her sample was undisputed. However, the panel emphasized that proving the source of the substance was not required to establish lack of intent to cheat. SAIDS bore the burden of proving intentionality to justify the four-year sanction, but the panel found insufficient evidence to support this claim. Coston’s clean record, demeanor, and efforts to identify the substance’s origin supported her assertion of unintentional ingestion. Nevertheless, the panel ruled that she could not qualify for a further reduction under "No Fault" or "No Significant Fault" provisions due to insufficient evidence pinpointing the exact source of the contamination.
The CAS partially upheld Coston’s appeal, reducing her sanction from four to two years of ineligibility, effective from February 19, 2018, the date of the initial SAIDS Tribunal decision. The panel dismissed her request for exoneration or a further reduction, citing the lack of definitive proof regarding the contamination’s origin. The decision underscored the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, which holds athletes responsible for any prohibited substances in their bodies, regardless of intent. However, it also highlighted the distinction between establishing an ADRV and proving intent, with the latter requiring a higher standard of evidence.
The ruling aligned with the World Anti-Doping Code’s principles, emphasizing fairness and procedural integrity while maintaining stringent anti-doping measures. Coston’s competitive results during the ineligibility period were disqualified, including forfeiture of titles, awards, and prize money. The CAS concluded that the timeline for notifying Coston of the violation and rendering a decision was reasonable, justifying the start date of the sanction. The case serves as a reminder of the challenges athletes face in proving lack of fault in contamination cases and the importance of rigorous supplement management to avoid inadvertent violations. The final decision reinforced the balance between enforcing anti-doping rules and safeguarding athletes’ rights in adjudication processes.