The case revolves around Australian canoeist Tate Smith, who tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol during out-of-competition doping tests in July 2014. The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) initiated proceedings against Smith, alleging anti-doping violations. Smith, an Olympic gold medalist, claimed the substance entered his system unintentionally, possibly through contaminated water or skin absorption during training in Hungary. Under the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code, Smith bore the burden of proving how the substance was ingested and demonstrating he was neither negligent nor at fault. The case examined the reliability of the test results and the plausibility of Smith’s explanations, particularly since three other team members tested at the same time returned negative results, casting doubt on the environmental contamination theory.
ASADA argued that the presence of stanozolol metabolites in Smith’s samples constituted a violation and sought a two-year suspension, backdated to his provisional suspension in September 2014. Smith initially contested the test validity but later withdrew this claim, maintaining accidental exposure through drinking water, sample contamination, or skin absorption due to injuries. The arbitration panel, led by sole arbitrator Jerrold Cripps QC, reviewed submissions and testimonies from both parties, including expert witnesses. ASADA presented evidence confirming the presence of stanozolol metabolites, while Smith’s defense relied on the possibility of accidental exposure, citing a 2011 report (the Deshmukh Report) that indicated trace amounts of stanozolol in the Danube River, though no direct link to the training site was established.
The Sole Arbitrator noted the lack of current evidence supporting water contamination in Szolnok during the relevant period and acknowledged Smith’s financial constraints in conducting further tests. However, the burden of proof remained on Smith to demonstrate both the presence of stanozolol in the environment and its innocent ingestion. The arbitrator dismissed Smith’s claims as speculative, particularly given the negative test results of his teammates and the absence of evidence supporting skin absorption or water contamination. The Deshmukh Report was deemed irrelevant, and experts could not confirm stanozolol could enter the body through skin contact. The amount of water required for ingestion to be effective was also deemed implausible.
Ultimately, the Sole Arbitrator ruled that Smith failed to meet the burden of proof required under the WADA Code. The Court of Arbitration for Sport imposed a two-year ineligibility period, backdated to September 2014, and invalidated all competitive results from July 2014, including forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes. The case underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances in their bodies unless they can prove no fault or negligence. The decision had significant implications for Smith’s career and highlighted the rigorous application of anti-doping rules in sports.