The case involves Levi Cadogan, a Barbadian sprinter, who appealed a doping ban imposed by the National Anti-Doping Commission of Barbados (NADCB) after testing positive for furosemide, a prohibited diuretic and masking agent. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reviewed the case, with Jeffrey Benz serving as the sole arbitrator. Cadogan, a young athlete with no prior violations, claimed he ingested furosemide accidentally, mistaking it for headache medication. He argued that the substance was not performance-enhancing and that the sanction was disproportionate, given the circumstances. The initial Disciplinary Panel had imposed a two-year ban, citing CAS precedent, despite having the authority to impose a four-year sanction. Cadogan appealed to CAS, seeking a reduced penalty, but the respondent (NADCB) did not contest the appeal.
The case centered on assessing fault, with three possible ranges: significant fault (16–24 months), medium fault (8–16 months), and light fault (0–8 months). The arbitrator emphasized that the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) already incorporates proportionality in sanctioning, making further reductions based on proportionality unnecessary. Cadogan’s defense included claims that he had no intent to enhance performance, was not training at the time of the test, and had consistent performance levels unaffected by doping. He also argued that furosemide, commonly used by jockeys for weight loss, would have been counterproductive to his fitness goals. The NADCB did not respond to Cadogan’s appeal submissions, despite being invited to do so.
The CAS determined it had jurisdiction over the case, as Cadogan is an international-level athlete and the appeal was filed within the required timeframe. The applicable law was the NADCB’s anti-doping regulations, supplemented by Barbadian law. The central issue was whether Cadogan’s violation warranted the imposed sanction. While he did not dispute the presence of furosemide, he contested the severity of the penalty, arguing for a reduction or elimination of the suspension. The CAS was tasked with evaluating the merits of his appeal, including the unintentional nature of the ingestion and the proportionality of the sanction.
The Sole Arbitrator found no evidence to establish that the violation was intentional, as the NADCB failed to present such proof. The analysis then turned to whether the athlete’s fault could be reduced under the NADCB Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). The athlete admitted he mistakenly ingested furosemide, thinking it was paracetamol, which demonstrated a lack of utmost caution. Thus, the Sole Arbitrator ruled this was not a "No Fault" case. Under the rules, the athlete could still seek a reduced sanction if he demonstrated "No Significant Fault or Negligence," meaning his mistake was not significant in relation to the violation. The arbitrator referenced the analytical framework from previous CAS cases, which outlines three ranges of fault. The athlete admitted fault for not checking the pill, and the arbitrator determined his actions fell under significant fault, warranting a sanction within the higher end of the 16–24 month range. Despite some mitigating factors, such as the similarity of the pills and the athlete’s reduced awareness, the arbitrator concluded that the athlete’s subjective fault was still considerable, leading to a 20-month sanction.
The ruling emphasizes that the WADC’s sanctions are already designed to be proportionate and that fault is inherently considered in determining sanctions. The decision underscores the importance of athletes exercising caution with medications and upholds the 20-month ineligibility as appropriate under the circumstances. The CAS panel upheld the appeal in part, imposing a 20-month period of ineligibility on Cadogan, effective from November 28, 2017. The decision highlights the consistency and fairness of anti-doping regulations in holding athletes accountable for violations, even when the ingestion of prohibited substances is unintentional.