The case revolves around an anti-doping rule violation involving Czech swimmer Kateřina Kašková, who tested positive for metandienone, a prohibited anabolic steroid, during an in-competition doping control in November 2017. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the initial decision by the Czech Swimming Federation (CSF) and the Czech Anti-Doping Committee (CADC), which had imposed a two-year suspension on the athlete. WADA argued that the standard four-year sanction for non-specified substances should apply unless the athlete could prove the violation was unintentional. Under anti-doping rules, the burden of proof lies with the athlete to demonstrate the absence of intent, requiring concrete evidence such as proof of supplement contamination or purchase.
Kašková claimed the substance entered her system through a supplement called Ginseng Kianpi Pil, allegedly purchased by her father to treat fatigue. However, she failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as proof of purchase, dosage details, or contamination analysis. She also did not disclose the supplement on her doping control form. WADA emphasized that mere assertions or circumstantial evidence, like statements from family members or a toxicologist’s consultation, were inadequate to meet the burden of proof. The case proceeded to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where the parties agreed to resolve the matter without a hearing. The sole arbitrator, Mr. Ercus Stewart, reviewed the submissions and concluded that Kašková did not provide credible evidence to prove the violation was unintentional.
The arbitrator upheld WADA’s appeal, imposing a four-year suspension and disqualifying all competitive results from November 2017 onward. The decision reinforced the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances in their bodies unless they can demonstrate the violation was unintentional through verifiable evidence. The case highlights the rigorous standards in doping cases and the importance of meticulous documentation by athletes regarding supplement use to avoid inadvertent violations. The final ruling underscored the consequences of failing to meet the burden of proof, resulting in a harsher sanction for the athlete.