The case involves Australian athlete Kim Mottrom, who was accused of anti-doping rule violations by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) on behalf of Athletics Australia (AA). The allegations stemmed from the detection of dextran, a prohibited substance classified under the World Anti-Doping Agency’s 2013 Prohibited List, in Mottrom’s urine sample collected during the Australian 50km Road Walking Championships in December 2013. Dextran, a blood plasma expander, can enhance performance by increasing blood fluidity and oxygen transport and may also mask the presence of steroids. ASADA argued that the concentration of dextran in Mottrom’s sample indicated intravenous administration, as oral ingestion could not account for the levels detected.
Mottrom, a registered member of Athletics Australia, voluntarily accepted a provisional suspension in March 2014 after being notified of the findings. ASADA initiated proceedings before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in July 2014, seeking sanctions for the alleged violations. The arbitration process involved jurisdictional challenges, extensions for submissions, and a preliminary award confirming CAS’s jurisdiction. The case was heard by a sole arbitrator, the Hon. Tricia Kavanagh, who reviewed extensive scientific and legal evidence. Mottrom contested the allegations, proposing alternative explanations such as bacterial contamination in his urine due to his medical condition (neutropenia), gut permeability from high sugar consumption, or improper sample handling. However, expert testimony from ASADA’s witnesses, including Dr. Catrin Goebel and Professor Paul Pavli, refuted these claims, asserting that the dextran levels could only result from intravenous administration.
The laboratory analysis confirmed high concentrations of high molecular weight dextran in both the "A" and "B" urine samples, far exceeding acceptable thresholds. Retesting of frozen samples showed consistent pH levels, undermining Mottrom’s argument of bacterial interference. The Sole Arbitrator rejected Mottrom’s defense, concluding that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supported the presence of prohibited dextran administered intravenously. The arbitrator found Mottrom in violation of Articles 6.1 and 6.2 of the AA Anti-Doping Policy, which pertain to the presence and use of prohibited substances. As a result, Mottrom was sanctioned with a two-year suspension, effective from March 21, 2014, with credit given for the period of provisional suspension already served.
The case highlights the complexities of anti-doping regulations, the stringent burden of proof required to establish violations, and the challenges athletes face in contesting adverse findings. It underscores the rigorous scientific and procedural standards applied in anti-doping adjudications, as well as the legal mechanisms available for resolving such disputes. The decision reaffirms the principle of strict liability in anti-doping cases, where athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances found in their samples, regardless of intent or fault. The ruling also emphasizes the importance of credible expert testimony and robust laboratory procedures in upholding the integrity of anti-doping efforts.