The case involves Xinyi Chen, a Chinese swimmer who competed in the 2016 Rio Olympics and tested positive for hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), a prohibited diuretic, during a doping control on August 7, 2016. Both her A and B samples confirmed the presence of the substance, prompting the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to file an application with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Anti-Doping Division, seeking a provisional suspension and further sanctions. The IOC requested the disqualification of Chen’s results, forfeiture of any medals, and her exclusion from the Games, along with additional sanctions by FINA, the international swimming federation. Chen, who finished fourth in the Women’s 100m butterfly, maintained her innocence, suggesting possible contamination through drinking water or other sources but failed to provide corroborating evidence. The panel, composed of Prof. Michael Geistlinger, Mr. Efraim Barak, and Mr. Juan Pablo Arriagada, emphasized the strict liability principle under anti-doping rules, which holds athletes responsible for any prohibited substances in their system, regardless of intent.
A hearing was held on August 17, 2016, where Chen, represented by legal counsel and expert witnesses, argued that laboratory errors and inconsistencies in detection limits for HCTZ cast doubt on the findings. Her team also highlighted her clean anti-doping record and efforts to identify the source of the substance. The IOC, represented by Jean-Pierre Morand, acknowledged minor procedural irregularities but maintained the validity of the results. The panel reviewed the laboratory’s adherence to the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL) and found no significant deviations, concluding that the presence of HCTZ was correctly reported. Chen’s speculative claims about contamination were deemed insufficient to rebut the adverse findings, as she could not provide concrete evidence to support her assertions.
The panel ruled that Chen committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules, leading to the disqualification of her results in the 100m butterfly and forfeiture of any medals or prizes. The case was referred to FINA for further sanctions beyond the Olympics. The decision underscored the stringent nature of anti-doping regulations, where athletes bear the burden of ensuring no prohibited substances enter their bodies and must provide plausible explanations if violations occur. The panel also noted the importance of adhering to established protocols and the challenges athletes face in contesting adverse findings. The ruling reaffirmed the strict liability principle, emphasizing that athletes are accountable for any prohibited substances detected, irrespective of how they entered their system. The case highlights the complexities of anti-doping enforcement and the rigorous standards athletes must meet to challenge violations.