The case CAS 2005/A/830 S. v. FINA, decided on 15 July 2005, involved an Italian swimmer who tested positive for clostebol, a prohibited substance, during the 2004 European Open Water Swimming Cup Competition. The athlete admitted using a cream called Trofodermin, which contained clostebol, to treat a skin condition on her foot. She claimed she had no intention to enhance performance and that her mother, unaware of the cream's prohibited content, had chosen it. The FINA Doping Panel found her guilty of an anti-doping violation and imposed a one-year suspension. The athlete appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking acquittal or a reduced sanction. The CAS panel, comprising Mr. Martin Schimke, Mr. Denis Oswald, and Mr. Massimo Coccia, examined the case under strict liability, duty of diligence, and proportionality principles. Under FINA's rules, the presence of a prohibited substance constitutes a violation, with the burden of proof on FINA. The panel acknowledged the athlete's negligence in failing to check the cream's composition, which was clearly labeled, but noted her lack of intent to gain a competitive advantage. This allowed consideration for a reduced sanction under the "no significant fault or negligence" provision of the WADA Code. The panel emphasized proportionality, stating that while the WADA Code permits penalty reductions in cases of no fault or negligence, such reductions must be justified by individual circumstances. It rejected the idea that discomfort with the sanction warranted reduction but acknowledged serious disproportionality could justify intervention. The panel upheld the one-year suspension, deeming it appropriate given the athlete's unintentional negligence and the need to uphold anti-doping integrity. The decision balanced strict liability with fairness, reinforcing that athletes must ensure the substances they use are permissible. The CAS confirmed the FINA Doping Panel's decision, dismissing the appeal and maintaining the one-year ineligibility. The case also addressed jurisdiction, confirming FINA's authority over the athlete through her membership in the Italian Swimming Federation, which incorporated FINA rules. The violation was based on a WADA-accredited laboratory's detection of clostebol in her urine sample, which she did not contest. The standard two-year sanction was reduced to one year by the FINA Doping Panel, considering her lack of experience, reliance on her mother, low substance concentration, and absence of performance-enhancing effects. The CAS found no grounds to alter this decision, upholding the one-year sanction as justified. The ruling underscored strict liability in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are responsible for prohibited substances in their bodies regardless of intent, while allowing reduced sanctions in cases of no significant fault. The panel also addressed proportionality, noting that while the WADA Code restricts discretion, proportionality could apply in extreme cases where sanctions are seriously disproportionate. However, reductions must be justified by individual circumstances, not mere discomfort with the sanction's severity. In this case, no special mitigating circumstances warranted further reduction. The panel adjusted the sanction's start date to align with the athlete's initial suspension by the national federation, ensuring fairness. The decision balanced respect for federations' autonomy with the need for proportionate sanctions, reinforcing the importance of case-by-case considerations within anti-doping frameworks.