The case involves Sarah Klein, a long-distance runner accused by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) and Athletics Australia (AA) of refusing or failing to submit to a complete urine sample during an in-competition doping control on February 13, 2016. The dispute was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), with Bruce Collins QC serving as the sole arbitrator. The central issue was whether Klein had a compelling justification for her failure to provide the required sample and whether the principle of proportionality should apply to reduce her potential four-year period of ineligibility. The arbitrator emphasized that "compelling justification" requires the athlete to demonstrate strong, objective reasons for their actions, setting a high standard. Klein argued she was unable to produce the full sample due to stress and time constraints, as she needed to catch a flight. However, the arbitrator found her justifications—such as panic, financial concerns, and scheduling conflicts—insufficient to meet the threshold of compelling justification.
The case also examined whether Klein's violation was intentional under the AA Anti-Doping Policy, which defines intentional conduct as actions where the athlete knowingly disregarded the risk of committing an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV). The arbitrator concluded that Klein understood the consequences of leaving the doping control station without completing the test, as she had been repeatedly warned by ASADA officials. Despite her initial cooperation, her decision to prioritize her travel plans over completing the test was deemed deliberate. Witness testimonies, including those from ASADA officials and a fellow athlete, supported the finding that Klein was fully aware of the ramifications of her actions.
The arbitrator then considered the principle of proportionality, which allows for adjustments to penalties in rare cases where strict application of the rules would lead to unjust outcomes. While the AA Policy generally imposes a four-year ban for intentional violations, the arbitrator acknowledged that Klein’s case presented unique mitigating factors: she had no prior doping violations, made a genuine attempt to comply, and her partial sample showed no signs of prohibited substances. The arbitrator noted that imposing the maximum penalty would unjustly equate her violation with more egregious cases, such as deliberate doping. Citing prior CAS jurisprudence, the arbitrator ruled that a two-year ban was more proportionate, balancing the need for deterrence with fairness.
The final decision reduced Klein’s sanction from four years to two, emphasizing that while her actions constituted a violation, the penalty should reflect the specific circumstances of her case. The ruling underscored the importance of strict adherence to anti-doping protocols while recognizing the limited role of proportionality in ensuring equitable outcomes. The period of ineligibility was set to begin on the date of the violation, February 13, 2016. The case highlights the tension between enforcing anti-doping regulations rigidly and allowing for individualized justice in exceptional situations. It also serves as a reminder of the serious consequences athletes face for non-compliance, even when logistical or personal challenges arise.