Aleksa Ukropina v. World Aquatics

At a glance

Parties

Aleksa Ukropina (water polo athlete, Montenegro) v. World Aquatics (WA)

Case no.

CAS 2024/A/11048

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal arbitration under the CAS Code. Appeal against an award of the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) under the WA Doping Control Rules (effective 1 January 2023), which incorporate the WADA Code.

Panel

Despina Mavromati (President), Jeffrey G. Benz, Romano F. Subiotto

Sector

Sport: aquatics (water polo); anti-doping

Outcome

Appeal dismissed (26 August 2025). The two-year period of ineligibility imposed by the CAS ADD for the presence of fenoterol, credited from 14 February 2024, is upheld.

The dispute

Aleksa Ukropina, an international-level water polo player from Montenegro, tested positive for fenoterol in an out-of-competition test on 21 January 2024. Fenoterol is a Specified Substance prohibited at all times. The source was Berodual drops for inhalation that a pulmonologist had prescribed for suspected bronchial asthma. A CAS ADD Single Judge found a violation of Article 2.1 of the WA Doping Control Rules and imposed two years of ineligibility from 14 February 2024. On appeal, the athlete argued that he bore No Significant Fault or Negligence because he used the drops in a medical emergency, relied on his doctor and did not intend to enhance performance. He also argued that a two-year sanction was disproportionate and asked for backdating so that he could compete at the Olympics. WA accepted that the violation was unintentional and that Berodual was the source, but argued that his fault was at least significant.

Key holdings

1. A doctor's valid prescription does not by itself establish No Significant Fault. The athlete remained obliged to check whether the medication contained a prohibited substance and to request a TUE if necessary. His failure to do so was significant fault. There was no evidence, beyond his own assertion, that he had told the doctor he was a professional athlete. ¶¶ 73–77
2. The athlete did not read the patient leaflet, which stated: "Note for athletes: Use of Berodual solution for inhalation may result in a positive doping test". Ignoring this red flag bears directly on his fault. The absence of a warning on the packaging is immaterial. ¶ 79
3. The Panel found it more likely than not that the doping control staff were never shown the medication. Even if they had been, the athlete remained personally responsible for declaring Berodual on the Doping Control Form, which he did not do. ¶¶ 80–82
4. No medical emergency was established. The athlete gave inconsistent accounts of its timing. He had bought the drops three days earlier and had already used them on 18 January 2024. The out-of-competition context and the claimed internet search did not reduce his fault. ¶¶ 83–87
5. The subjective factors do not support a reduction. The athlete had received anti-doping education, had competed at the highest level since 2016 (including the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games) and was treated by a doctor in his home country. His fault remained significant, so the standard two-year ineligibility stands. ¶¶ 90–93
6. The proportionality principle is already embedded in the WADA Code. The case presents no exceptional elements that would justify reducing the two-year period. ¶¶ 94–95
7. No backdating. Backdating under Article 10.13.1 is discretionary, the athlete proved no substantial delays, and he already receives credit from 14 February 2024. Results from 21 January to 14 February 2024 are disqualified because the athlete did not show that fairness required otherwise. ¶¶ 98–101

Procedural history

1. 21 January 2024Out-of-competition doping control in Herceg Novi, Montenegro.
2. 12 February 2024The Seibersdorf laboratory reports an adverse analytical finding for fenoterol.
3. 14 February 2024The athlete waives B-sample analysis and accepts a voluntary provisional suspension.
4. 17 June 2024The ITA, on behalf of WA, charges the athlete under Articles 2.1 and/or 2.2 of the WA Doping Control Rules.
5. 4 July 2024WA files a Request for Arbitration with the CAS Anti-Doping Division.
6. 11 July 2024The CAS ADD Single Judge issues the operative part: violation of Article 2.1 and two years' ineligibility from 14 February 2024. The reasoned award follows on 11 November 2024.
7. 2 December 2024The athlete files a Statement of Appeal, serving as his Appeal Brief, with the CAS.
8. 18 February 2025The CAS Court Office confirms the constitution of the Panel.
9. 30 April 2025Hearing held by videoconference.
10. 26 August 2025Award: appeal dismissed and the CAS ADD decision upheld.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Despina Mavromati President, Court of Arbitration for Sport
• Jeffrey G. Benz Co-arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport
• Romano F. Subiotto Co-arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the respondent

For the claimant

Ivana Bojović · Tijana Živković

For the respondent

Nicolò Juglair · Justin Lessard

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• fenoterol
• Berodual
• water polo
• anti-doping rule violation
• specified substance
• No Significant Fault or Negligence
• degree of fault
• reliance on doctor's advice
• Therapeutic Use Exemption
• Doping Control Form
• patient leaflet
• medical emergency
• proportionality
• backdating of ineligibility
• disqualification of results
• CAS Anti-Doping Division
• WADA Code
• World Aquatics Doping Control Rules

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.