The case involves Jan Sterba, a Czech canoeist, who faced doping allegations during the 2012 London Olympics after testing positive for ß-methylphenylethylamine (BM), a stimulant found in a nutritional supplement he had declared. The International Canoe Federation (ICF) provisionally suspended Sterba, arguing BM was a non-specified stimulant under the 2012 Prohibited List, warranting a sanction. Sterba contended BM was a specified substance, which could lead to a reduced penalty if he proved no significant fault or negligence. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel determined BM was a specified stimulant due to its chemical similarity to amphetamine, a listed substance. The panel considered Sterba’s good faith, clean anti-doping record, and efforts to verify the supplement’s safety, concluding his fault was minimal and reducing his sanction to a reprimand with no ineligibility period.
The legal proceedings highlighted the complexities of anti-doping regulations, particularly the classification of substances and the athlete’s responsibility. The ICF initially imposed a six-month suspension, but Sterba appealed to the ICF Court of Arbitration, which overturned the decision, citing ambiguity in the Prohibited List’s wording. The ICF then appealed to CAS, which reviewed the case under Swiss law and the ICF Anti-Doping Rules. The panel emphasized strict liability under Article 2.1, requiring athletes to ensure no prohibited substances enter their bodies, but acknowledged Sterba’s precautions, including consulting a doctor and cross-checking the supplement’s ingredients.
The case underscored the balance between enforcing anti-doping rules and fairness in assessing an athlete’s intent and actions. Sterba’s lack of competitive incentive to dope, his clean record, and the supplement’s undeclared BM content supported the panel’s decision to reduce the sanction. The ruling also criticized the ICF for appealing its own arbitration decision, questioning the fairness of the process. Ultimately, the panel found Sterba violated anti-doping rules but imposed only a reprimand, recognizing his negligible fault and the absence of intent to cheat. The decision reinforced the importance of clarity in prohibited substance classifications and the need for athletes to exercise caution with supplements while ensuring equitable outcomes in doping cases.