The case revolves around professional cyclist Jeone Park, who was found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA), acting on behalf of Cycling Australia (CA), brought the case against Park for attempting to use a prohibited method—an intravenous (IV) infusion of grape syrup and vitamins—after competing in the UCI World Junior Championship in August 2014. Following a fall during the event, Park felt unwell and was taken by his father, also a cyclist, to a cousin who was a trained nurse. The cousin suggested the IV infusion, and Park’s father, after checking the substances, assured him it did not contain banned substances under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADA Code). A photograph of the IV procedure posted on social media led to ASADA’s investigation.
Park admitted to the violation but contested its classification, arguing it should be considered an "Attempted Use" rather than "Use" of a prohibited method. He accepted a provisional suspension and submitted statements to the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel (ADRVP), which confirmed the violation. The case was referred to CAS to determine the appropriate sanction. The arbitrator, Justice Annabelle Bennett, emphasized that under Article 2.2 of the WADA Code, athletes bear personal responsibility for ensuring no prohibited methods are used, regardless of intent, fault, or knowledge. Ignorance of the rules, youth, or influence from family members does not excuse the violation but may be considered in assessing culpability. The standard sanction for such violations is a two-year suspension unless mitigating factors justify a reduction.
Park, then 19 years old, argued for a reduced sanction, citing his youth, lack of awareness, and reliance on his father and cousin’s assurances. He also pointed to his cooperation with authorities and lack of competitive advantage. However, ASADA contended that Park, as an experienced athlete with prior anti-doping education, should have known the rules and failed to exercise due caution. The arbitrator ruled that Park had committed an ADRV through the attempted use of a prohibited method. While his youth and lack of awareness were noted, they did not absolve him of responsibility. The decision reinforced the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, underscoring that athletes must proactively ensure compliance with anti-doping rules.
The arbitrator imposed a two-year ineligibility period, backdated to commence on June 11, 2015, the date Park’s submissions were deemed an admission of the violation. All competitive results from that date onward were invalidated, including forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes. The case highlights the stringent obligations placed on athletes under the WADA Code and serves as a reminder of the consequences of failing to adhere to anti-doping regulations. The final decision underscores the importance of personal responsibility and the need for athletes to independently verify compliance with anti-doping rules, regardless of external assurances.