The case revolves around Ziga Jeglic, a Slovenian ice hockey player who tested positive for fenoterol, a prohibited beta-2 agonist found in asthma medication, during the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics. Jeglic admitted to using an asthma inhaler containing fenoterol, prescribed by his doctor, and waived his right to test the B sample. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) initiated proceedings, leading to a provisional suspension and confirmation of an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) under Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules. The International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) sought a two-year period of ineligibility but later modified this to eight months, acknowledging Jeglic’s explanation that the substance entered his system through a prescribed inhaler.
The case centered on determining the appropriate sanction, considering whether Jeglic acted intentionally or negligently. Under the IIHF Disciplinary Code and the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), if the violation was not intentional, the standard sanction is two years, which can be reduced if the athlete demonstrates No Fault or No Significant Fault. The panel found Jeglic did not meet the No Fault standard, as he relied on his doctor’s advice without verifying the medication’s status. However, the IIHF accepted that the violation occurred with No Significant Fault, warranting a reduced sanction. Jeglic argued for a reprimand or a four-month suspension, citing his reliance on medical advice and lack of intent to dope.
The Sole Arbitrator assessed Jeglic’s degree of fault, categorizing it as "light" based on his reliance on medical advice, lack of intent, and the doctor’s negligence. The arbitrator emphasized the objective standard—what a reasonable person in Jeglic’s position would have done—over subjective factors. The final decision imposed an eight-month period of ineligibility, reflecting Jeglic’s limited fault and cooperation. The provisional suspension began on February 20, 2018, and the ineligibility period was credited for time already served.
The case highlights the complexities of anti-doping regulations, the role of medical professionals, and the balance between strict liability and mitigating circumstances. It underscores the importance of athlete diligence in verifying medications and the consequences of relying on medical advice without independent checks. The decision also notes Jeglic’s right to appeal, concluding with the formal imposition of the eight-month sanction and dismissal of other requests. The case serves as a reminder of the stringent expectations placed on athletes to ensure compliance with anti-doping rules while recognizing the challenges they face in navigating medical prescriptions and professional advice.