The case of Guillermo Cañas v. ATP Tour, decided by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in 2007, involved a doping violation where Cañas tested positive for hydrochlorothiazide (HCT), a prohibited substance, during a tournament in February 2005. The ATP Tour imposed a two-year suspension and required Cañas to repay prize money earned from affected competitions. Cañas appealed, arguing the violation was unintentional, as he had taken medication mistakenly provided by tournament staff, believing it was prescribed by the tournament doctor for congestion. He claimed no fault or negligence, asserting he relied on the tournament's medical personnel. The CAS panel examined whether Cañas met the criteria for "No Fault or Negligence" or "No Significant Fault or Negligence" under ATP rules, which could reduce his suspension.
The panel acknowledged Cañas's reliance on the tournament doctor but found him negligent for not verifying the medication, especially since he failed to list it on his doping control form or check its label. While the panel accepted that the medication error was made by tournament staff, it emphasized that professional athletes bear personal responsibility for substances they ingest. The panel noted mitigating factors, such as the absence of intent to dope and the medication being prescribed through official channels, but concluded Cañas's oversight constituted significant fault. However, considering the exceptional circumstances, the panel reduced his suspension from two years to fifteen months, starting from June 2005, when he voluntarily stopped competing.
The decision underscored the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are accountable for prohibited substances in their systems regardless of intent. It also highlighted the limited exceptions for reducing sanctions, requiring athletes to demonstrate how the substance entered their body and prove minimal fault. The panel rejected Cañas's arguments under Delaware law and antitrust claims, affirming the ATP's authority to enforce standardized penalties. Ultimately, the ruling balanced strict enforcement with fairness, recognizing the unique context of Cañas's case while upholding the integrity of anti-doping rules. The case serves as a reminder of the high standard of care expected from athletes and the consequences of failing to meet it.