The case revolves around a Ukrainian professional ice hockey player, P., who was suspended for two years by the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) after testing positive for nandrolone, a prohibited substance, during the 2005 IIHF Senior Ice Hockey Championship. The IIHF Disciplinary Committee ruled that the player had committed an anti-doping violation, as he failed to prove he was without fault or negligence regarding the presence of the substance in his system. The player contested this decision, arguing that the nandrolone entered his body unknowingly during emergency medical treatment for acute heart failure following a severe injury during a game in Belarus. He claimed he was in no condition to monitor or question the treatment, which included an injection of Retabolil (nandrolone), and only discovered this detail months later after obtaining hospital records.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel examined the case under the strict liability principle of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), which holds athletes responsible for prohibited substances in their bodies regardless of intent, unless they can demonstrate no significant fault or negligence. The panel found the player’s evidence credible, as it showed the substance was administered in an emergency without his knowledge or ability to prevent it. The panel also considered whether the player’s failure to disclose his medical treatment and seek a retroactive Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) constituted negligence. However, due to his severe physical and psychological state during treatment, the panel did not resolve this broader question, focusing instead on the immediate context of the emergency.
The IIHF argued that the mere presence of the substance constituted a violation and questioned the player’s credibility, particularly his failure to disclose the treatment before the championship. However, the CAS panel ultimately ruled in favor of the player, setting aside the IIHF’s decision. The panel emphasized that the player had no control over the emergency treatment and could not have influenced the administration of the substance. Witness testimony corroborated his account, confirming his severe distress and inability to prevent the treatment. The panel dismissed irrelevant questions raised by the IIHF, such as the medical rationale for using Retabolil, as these did not undermine the credibility of the evidence.
The case highlights the tension between strict liability in anti-doping regulations and exceptions for athletes who can prove no fault or negligence in exceptional circumstances. The CAS panel concluded that the player met the burden of proof required to eliminate the standard period of ineligibility, as the violation occurred under circumstances beyond his control. The ruling underscores the importance of credible evidence and witness testimony in adjudicating such disputes, while reaffirming the strict liability principle with recognized exceptions for cases of genuine lack of fault or negligence. The player’s suspension was annulled, and the decision emphasized his lack of fault or negligence in the administration of the prohibited substance.