Gabriel da Silva Santos, an elite Brazilian swimmer, appealed a doping violation decision by FINA after testing positive for Clostebol, a prohibited anabolic agent, during an out-of-competition test in May 2019. Santos claimed the substance entered his system through cross-contamination during a brief visit to his mother’s home, where he shared items like towels and pillows with his brother, who was using a Clostebol-containing cream for a skin condition. He argued he was unaware of his brother’s medication and had no reason to suspect contamination. FINA’s Doping Panel accepted the cross-contamination explanation but imposed an eight-month ineligibility period, later increased to one year without explanation. Santos appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), contending he acted with No Fault or Negligence and should face no sanction, or alternatively, that the contamination warranted a reduced penalty.
The CAS panel emphasized its role in applying, not revising, anti-doping rules. It evaluated whether Santos could have reasonably known or suspected the risk of contamination, considering his circumstances. The panel noted that athletes cannot be expected to scrutinize family members' medications during short visits, especially when they have no involvement in their anti-doping obligations. It ruled that Santos’s brother, with whom he did not live or share anti-doping responsibilities, was not part of his entourage, meaning Santos bore no responsibility for his brother’s actions. The panel found parallels with the CAS decision in the Gasquet case, where an athlete was inadvertently contaminated through unsuspicious means, reinforcing that athletes cannot be faulted for unforeseeable risks.
FINA argued that the one-year suspension was the minimum allowable for Non-Specified Substances and that Santos failed to prove No Fault or Negligence, as he did not exercise sufficient caution. However, the CAS panel rejected this, highlighting that Santos was in a safe, familial environment and had no reason to inquire about his brother’s private medical treatments. The panel distinguished this case from the Errani case, where an athlete was held responsible for her mother’s actions because her mother was part of her entourage. In contrast, Santos had no control over his brother’s actions and no reason to suspect contamination.
Ultimately, the CAS panel ruled that Santos acted with No Fault or Negligence, overturning FINA’s decision and eliminating his sanction. The decision underscored the limits of athletes' obligations under anti-doping rules, stressing that unreasonable expectations should not be imposed in cases of inadvertent contamination. The panel affirmed that athletes cannot be held accountable for circumstances beyond their reasonable control, reinforcing the principle of fairness in anti-doping regulations. The ruling lifted Santos’s suspension immediately, as he had accepted a provisional suspension and no competitive results were affected. The panel dismissed all other claims for relief, unanimously concluding that Santos bore no fault or negligence under the circumstances.