The case involves Australian athlete Peter Atkins, who was accused of doping violations by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) during the 2009 Australian Surf Lifesaving Championships. The dispute centered on allegations that Atkins had used stanozolol, a prohibited substance, while competing in the Men’s Open Surf Boat event. ASADA, acting on behalf of Surf Life Saving Australia (SLSA), issued an infraction notice, citing two violations: the presence of a prohibited substance and its use. Atkins contested the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing he was not properly bound by SLSA’s Anti-Doping Policy (ADP) because he was unaware of its terms when he became a member.
The tribunal, led by arbitrator David Grace QC, addressed several key issues. It considered whether Atkins, as an elite athlete with years of experience, should have known about the prohibition of performance-enhancing drugs, inferring that he likely did, given his failure to disclose his use of stanozolol on doping control forms. The tribunal also examined the implications of Atkins' refusal to testify, noting that while his silence did not constitute an admission of guilt, it could be considered when evaluating the evidence. Additionally, the tribunal emphasized the need for clarity and predictability in anti-doping rules to ensure athletes understand the consequences of violations.
Regarding jurisdiction, the tribunal found that Atkins had agreed to abide by SLSA’s constitution and policies when he signed his membership application, which explicitly referenced compliance with all regulations. Thus, the ADP was enforceable against him. The tribunal dismissed arguments that the rules were unclear, affirming that athletes must be held accountable for violations under established policies. Atkins relied on legal precedents, including the High Court of Australia’s decision in Toll (FGCT) Pty. Ltd. v Alphapharm Pty. Ltd., which states that unusual or onerous contractual terms must be brought to a party’s attention to be enforceable. However, the tribunal ruled that the term "policies" in the membership form was not unusual or exclusionary, and no special notice was required.
Ultimately, the tribunal ruled that CAS had jurisdiction and that Atkins had committed anti-doping violations. The sanctions included disqualification of his individual results, forfeiture of medals and prizes, and a two-year ineligibility period. The tribunal also addressed whether the disqualification should extend to his teammates, concluding that the surf boat race was a team sport under the World Anti-Doping Code, and since substitutions were not permitted during the final race, the crew’s result would stand unless more than two members were found in violation. The team’s victory was upheld, but official records were to reflect the names of the other crew members, excluding Atkins.
The decision reinforced the importance of strict adherence to anti-doping regulations and the enforceability of policies agreed upon by athletes through membership contracts. It also highlighted the need for clarity in sporting federations’ rules to avoid interpretive challenges. The case underscores the principle that experienced athletes are presumed to understand doping prohibitions and the consequences of non-compliance, even if they claim ignorance of specific policies. The ruling also affirmed the transparency requirements under the ADP, mandating public disclosure of violations while respecting confidentiality in cases where no violation is found. The CAS upheld its jurisdiction and the penalties imposed, ensuring accountability in anti-doping enforcement.