The case revolves around professional tennis player Ashley Kratzer, who was banned for four years by the International Tennis Federation (ITF) after testing positive for Growth Hormone-Releasing Peptide 6 (GHRP-6), a prohibited substance, during the Oracle Challengers Tournament in January 2020. Kratzer claimed the substance entered her system through an unlabeled cream given to her by a local coach in China to treat severe foot blisters, asserting she was unaware it contained a banned substance. The ITF's Independent Tribunal found her guilty of negligence, imposing the ban, which she later challenged at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS panel, led by Prof. Ulrich Haas, examined whether her conduct was intentional or negligent, focusing on the distinction between recklessness and obliviousness. While Kratzer had received anti-doping education and understood her responsibility for substances in her body, she failed to verify the cream's contents or declare its use during doping control. The panel concluded her actions were negligent but not intentional, reducing her ban from four years to two.
The case highlights the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, emphasizing athletes' responsibility for any prohibited substances in their systems, regardless of intent. Kratzer argued she did not intend to cheat, as the cream was provided for medical purposes, and she lacked knowledge of its contents. However, the ITF contended that her use of an unverified, unlabeled cream demonstrated a disregard for the risk of doping, warranting a four-year ban. The CAS ultimately upheld the violation but adjusted the sanction, considering her lack of intent and the circumstances under which the substance entered her system. The ruling underscores the importance of athletes exercising extreme caution with any substances they use, particularly those obtained without proper labeling or documentation. It also clarifies the legal standards for distinguishing between intentional and negligent conduct in doping cases.
Kratzer's appeal detailed her reliance on the cream during tournaments, initially in China, where she faced acute pain and limited access to medical advice. The Sole Arbitrator acknowledged her challenging circumstances at the time but noted that by the Newport Beach tournament, she had become aware of the cream's therapeutic effects and continued using it without further investigation. This shift in behavior suggested a more deliberate disregard for anti-doping rules, leading the arbitrator to uphold the ITF's original decision. The final ruling imposed a four-year ineligibility period, starting from the date of the CAS hearing, with credit for her provisional suspension. Her results from the Newport Beach tournament were disqualified, resulting in forfeited titles, ranking points, and prize money. The case serves as a reminder of the stringent expectations placed on athletes to ensure compliance with anti-doping regulations, even when using treatments for legitimate medical purposes.