The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a case involving the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS), and professional boxer Ruann Visser, who tested positive for stanozolol, a prohibited substance. The dispute centered on allegations of doping and procedural irregularities during sample collection and analysis. The sole arbitrator, Mr. Markus Manninen, addressed multiple legal and procedural issues, including the interpretation of what constitutes a "decision" under anti-doping rules, the validity of sample handling, and the burden of proof in establishing intent.
The arbitrator emphasized that not all procedural departures invalidate test results, only those that fundamentally compromise the integrity of the process, such as denying an athlete’s right to attend the B-sample analysis. The use of Berlinger kits for sample storage was deemed acceptable, as tampering would require specialized tools and leave detectable marks. Delays in transporting samples were not inherently problematic if done "as soon as practicable," and temporary storage at a doping control officer’s home was permissible if properly sealed. Discrepancies in urine volumes and stanozolol concentrations between samples were examined but found insufficient to prove manipulation, given the qualitative nature of the testing method.
Visser contested the findings, alleging procedural flaws, forged signatures, and sample tampering. However, DNA analysis confirmed the sample belonged to him, undermining claims of substitution. His argument that stanozolol entered his system through second-hand boxing gloves was dismissed as speculative and unsupported by evidence. The arbitrator ruled that Visser failed to prove how the substance entered his body, rendering the violation intentional under anti-doping rules.
WADA sought a four-year ineligibility period, disqualification of Visser’s competitive results from specific periods, and coverage of legal costs. The CAS upheld WADA’s appeal, imposing the four-year ban, effective from the award date, with credit for a provisional suspension Visser served earlier. His results from February 2018 to April 2018 and April 2019 until the award’s enforcement were disqualified, including forfeiture of medals and prizes. The arbitrator noted Visser’s procedural delays, which prolonged the case, but found no grounds for further leniency.
The decision underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes bear the burden of proving unintentional violations. It also highlights the balance between enforcing anti-doping standards and ensuring procedural fairness, with CAS affirming its jurisdiction and the validity of the appeal process. The ruling clarifies key aspects of doping adjudication, including sample integrity, the admissibility of evidence, and the consequences of intentional violations.