The case revolves around a Polish cross-country skier, K., who tested positive for the prohibited substance Dexamethason during a doping control at the FIS U23 OPA Intercontinental Cup Competition in Oberstdorf, Germany, on January 23, 2005. Dexamethason, a glucocorticosteroid listed under Group S9 of the 2005 Prohibited List, was detected in her A-sample. The athlete claimed she had an Abbreviated Therapeutic Use Exemption (ATUE) for medical reasons, submitted to the Polish Ski Association in December 2004, but failed to present it during the doping control. The FIS Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (TUEC) later denied her retroactive TUE request, citing late submission and concerns about chronic Dexamethason use.
Initially, the FIS Doping Panel classified Dexamethason as a non-Specified Substance under Article 10.2 of the FIS Anti-Doping Rules, imposing a two-year ineligibility period. The athlete appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that Dexamethason should be classified as a Specified Substance under Article 10.3, which allows for more lenient sanctions. The CAS panel found that the FIS Doping Panel had erred in its classification, as Dexamethason was indeed listed as a Specified Substance in the 2005 Prohibited List. The CAS emphasized that the athlete’s medical use of the substance shifted the burden of proof to FIS to demonstrate performance-enhancing intent, which it failed to do. The panel also noted the athlete’s negligence in failing to follow proper TUE procedures but found the two-year sanction disproportionate.
FIS later revised its decision, reducing the suspension to one year after WADA clarified Dexamethason’s status as a Specified Substance. The athlete, however, contested this revised sanction, arguing that mitigating circumstances—such as her medical justification and the Polish Ski Association’s lack of support—warranted further reduction. The CAS ultimately ruled that while the athlete was negligent in not verifying the substance’s status or securing a proper TUE, her actions did not indicate intent to enhance performance. The panel criticized the Polish Ski Association for its role in the oversight but upheld the athlete’s responsibility to comply with anti-doping rules.
In its final decision, the CAS reduced the sanction further, setting the ineligibility period to end on December 8, 2005, and disqualifying her results from the January 23, 2005 competition. The case underscores the importance of correct substance classification, procedural fairness, and the athlete’s duty to adhere to anti-doping regulations, even when mitigating factors are present. The CAS highlighted that negligence in procedural compliance, rather than deliberate wrongdoing, justified a lesser sanction. The ruling clarifies the interplay between Articles 10.2, 10.3, and 10.5 of the FIS Anti-Doping Rules and reinforces the need for clear, consistent application of doping regulations to ensure fairness.