Natalia Kropska v. Polish Anti-Doping Agency (POLADA)

At a glance

Parties

Natalia Kropska (Polish judoka) v. Polish Anti-Doping Agency (POLADA)

Case no.

CAS 2022/A/8978

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal under Articles R47 et seq. of the CAS Code; POLADA Anti-Doping Rules (2021)

Tribunal

Annett Rombach (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Sport – judo; anti-doping

Outcome

Appeal dismissed (3 October 2023). The POLADA Disciplinary Panel decision of 27 April 2022, with its two-year period of ineligibility, was confirmed.

Amount

No monetary claim. Sanction: two years' ineligibility, with results from 1 to 22 October 2021 disqualified.

The dispute

Natalia Kropska, an international-level Polish judoka, gave a urine sample in an in-competition test at the Polish Senior Judo Championship in Opole on 1 October 2021. Her A-Sample contained furosemide (275 ng/ml) and its metabolite furosemide glucuronide (408 ng/ml). Furosemide is a specified diuretic and threshold substance, reportable above 20 ng/ml. The POLADA Disciplinary Panel found a violation of Article 2.1 of the POLADA ADR and imposed two years of ineligibility. On appeal, the athlete relied on admitted departures from the International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI): the doping control station shared a room with the checkweigher and was open to others; she was not made to wash her hands; four partial samples went into one unsealed collection vessel; urine was poured back and forth between the A and B bottles; and the partial sampling was not recorded on the form. She argued that these departures required automatic invalidation of the result, or at least could reasonably have caused contamination. POLADA answered that the departures could not have caused the finding and that her contamination scenarios were hypothetical.

Key holdings

1. The Sole Arbitrator found that the DCOs departed from the ISTI in four ways. The station was set up wrongly and was open to all athletes (Arts. 6.3.2, C.4.7). They did not ensure that the athlete washed her hands (Art. C.4.6). They did not use separate, sealed vessels for the partial samples (Arts. E.4.2–E.4.6). They did not record the partial sampling or the deviations on the Doping Control Form. ¶ 72
2. Pouring urine from the same collection vessel back and forth between the A and B bottles before sealing is not an ISTI departure. Article C.4.13 sets only minimum volumes for each bottle, and the WADA ISL concerns analysis, not collection. This practice therefore cannot invalidate the results, let alone automatically. ¶¶ 79–81
3. The ISTI departures, taken alone or together, were deplorable but not so fundamental that they undermined the fairness of the testing process. No ground for automatic invalidation was shown. ¶¶ 82–83
4. Under Article 3.2.3 of the POLADA ADR, the athlete must first establish facts showing a plausible causal link between the departure and the finding; a merely hypothetical link is not enough. Only then does the burden shift to POLADA to show that the departure did not cause the finding. ¶¶ 84–86
5. Deliberate spiking was ruled out because the vessel stayed covered and under DCO watch at all times. The contamination scenarios (other people's urine, the toilet, ground or tap water, unwashed hands, the DCO holding her arm) were hypothetical. The athlete's expert, Dr. Kłodzińska, offered no analytical proof. The concentration was more than 10 times the threshold, and no other athlete tested positive. The athlete had also signed the form without objection. The violation of Article 2.1 was established. ¶¶ 89–93
6. Furosemide is a specified substance and POLADA did not try to prove intent, so the period of ineligibility is two years under Article 10.2.2. The athlete did not plead no fault or no significant fault. She receives credit for the provisional suspension served since 22 October 2021. Her results from 1 October to 22 October 2021 are disqualified, with forfeiture of medals, points and prizes. ¶¶ 96–104

Procedural history

1. 1 October 2021In-competition doping control at the Polish Senior Judo Championship in Opole (sample no. 0002992).
2. 22 October 2021POLADA notifies the adverse analytical finding and provisionally suspends the athlete. On 29 October 2021 she waives analysis of the B-Sample.
3. 10 November 2021POLADA opens disciplinary proceedings (case no. 16/2021). Four hearings follow between 20 December 2021 and 10 February 2022.
4. 27 April 2022The POLADA Disciplinary Panel imposes two years of ineligibility. Reasons are notified on 1 June 2022.
5. 21 June 2022Statement of Appeal filed with CAS, with a legal aid application, which was granted on 23 August 2022.
6. 30 August 2022Sole Arbitrator Annett Rombach appointed.
7. 8 December 2022Hearing held by videoconference.
8. 3 October 2023Award: appeal dismissed and the Disciplinary Panel decision confirmed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Annett Rombach Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution

For the claimant

Michael Kaczmarek

For the respondent

POLADA

Experts

Ewa Kłodzińska (claimant) · Andrzej Pokrywka (respondent)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• furosemide
• diuretic
• judo
• doping
• ISTI departures
• partial sample collection
• Article 3.2.3 POLADA ADR
• burden of proof
• automatic invalidation
• sample contamination
• doping control station
• specified substance
• threshold substance
• two-year ineligibility
• disqualification of results
• CAS 2014/A/3487

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