The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding an anti-doping rule violation by Slovenian javelin thrower Martina Ratej during the 2012 London Olympics. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) initiated proceedings after re-analysis of Ratej’s urine sample revealed the presence of Clostebol metabolites, a prohibited substance under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC). The substance, an exogenous anabolic androgenic steroid, was detected by a WADA-accredited laboratory in Lausanne, Switzerland, despite initial testing in 2012 showing no adverse findings. Ratej admitted the presence of the substance but claimed it entered her system unintentionally through the use of Trofodermin cream, prescribed for a uterine issue in July 2012. She waived her right to have the B Sample analyzed and did not contest the adverse analytical finding. The IOC argued that under Article 2.1.2 of the WADC, the presence of a prohibited substance in the A Sample alone constitutes sufficient proof of a violation, regardless of intent or negligence, which are only relevant for determining sanctions.
The Sole Arbitrator, Martina Spreitzer-Kropiunik, ruled that the anti-doping rule violation was established under the IOC Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) applicable to the 2012 Olympics. The ADR mandates automatic disqualification of the athlete’s results in the competition where the violation occurred, including forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes. The Arbitrator noted that mitigating circumstances raised by Ratej, such as her claim of unintentional ingestion and prior notification to the Slovenian Anti-Doping Organization (SLOADO), were irrelevant to establishing the violation itself, though they could be considered in subsequent sanctioning proceedings by the relevant International Federation. The CAS Anti-Doping Division (ADD) lacked jurisdiction to impose sanctions beyond those related to the Olympic Games, as this authority rests with the International Federation.
The IOC’s request for relief was granted, resulting in Ratej’s disqualification from the 2012 London Olympics and the forfeiture of her seventh-place finish and any associated rewards. The decision underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where the presence of a prohibited substance alone suffices to establish a violation, irrespective of the athlete’s intent or explanations for its presence. The case also highlights the procedural limitations of the CAS ADD, which cannot adjudicate sanctions beyond the scope of the Olympic Games. The ruling reinforces the zero-tolerance approach to doping in sports and the importance of upholding the integrity of competition. Ratej’s case serves as a reminder that athletes are personally responsible for ensuring no prohibited substances enter their bodies, and any violation, regardless of circumstances, leads to automatic disqualification from the event in question. The decision can be appealed within 21 days to the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division, but the final ruling confirms the ADRV and disqualifies Ratej’s Olympic results.