Polish paddler Dorota Borowska is eligible to compete following a decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD).
The International Testing Agency (ITA) has confirmed that CAS ADD found that Borowska had committed an anti-doping rule violation, but the circumstances of her case amounted to “no fault”.
Borowska had been provisionally suspended by the ITA when the case was initially reported.
However, the ruling by CAS ADD means Borowska’s ban has been lifted with immediate effect and is now eligible to compete.
The ITA statement issued on August 4, 2024, reads: “The International Testing Agency (ITA), leading an independent anti-doping program for the International Canoe Federation (ICF), confirms that the Court of Arbitration for Sport Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) has found that Polish athlete Dorota Borowska committed an anti-doping rule violation, however that the circumstances of her case amounted to “no fault” and she is thus free to compete in events.”
“Earlier today, CAS ADD issued an operative award according to which Dorota Borowska proved that she bears “No Fault or Negligence” in relation to her anti-doping rule violation and, therefore, no period of ineligibility applies (article 10.5 of the ICF anti-doping rules and World Anti-Doping Code).
“The mandatory provisional suspension imposed against the athlete pursuant to the ICF anti-doping rules when the case was initially reported is lifted with immediate effect and the athlete is eligible to compete.
“Also, since the positive sample was collected out-of-competition and the athlete did not compete since, there are no results to disqualify.
“Considering the expedited procedure conducted before CAS ADD, CAS ADD has not yet issued the reasons for its decision.
“However, it can be said that, over the course of the proceedings, the athlete produced evidence that inadvertent contact with the prohibited substance, contained in a medication used to treat her dog’s injuries, led to her positive test and that considering the very low amounts of the drug absorbed by the athlete, she had not benefitted from any undue performance-enhancing effect.
“Upon review of the case file and scientific examination, the ITA accepted the athlete’s explanation, i.e. that this was a case of inadvertent contamination.
“However, the ITA, on behalf of ICF, believed that due to the principle of “strict liability”, the athlete’s level of fault did not warrant a finding of “No Fault or Negligence”.”
