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

At a glance

Parties

Natalia Rok (Poland), professional boxer, v. Polish Anti-Doping Agency (POLADA)

Case no.

CAS 2024/A/11051

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeals procedure under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration; hearing by videoconference

Treaty

POLADA Anti-Doping Rules (Articles 13.2 and 13.2.1: appeal to CAS)

Panel

Prof. Stefano Bastianon (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Boxing; anti-doping (cocaine)

Outcome

Appeal dismissed (24 September 2025). The four-year ineligibility imposed by the POLADA Disciplinary Panel is confirmed, running from 2 January 2024.

The dispute

Natalia Rok, a Polish professional boxer and International-Level Athlete, tested positive for cocaine and its metabolite benzoylecgonine in an in-competition control on 10 December 2023. Cocaine is a non-Specified Substance and a Substance of Abuse, prohibited in competition. The POLADA Disciplinary Panel found violations of Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the POLADA Anti-Doping Rules and imposed four years of ineligibility. On appeal the Athlete did not dispute the violation. She argued that her drink had been spiked by an unknown man at the HEX club in Toruń on the night of 8–9 December 2023, so that use occurred out of competition and unrelated to sport. On that basis she sought a three-month sanction under Article 10.2.4.1, or two years under Article 10.2.4.2, and also relied on proportionality. POLADA replied that the Athlete had changed her explanation (from spiking to sabotage in the changing room and back), offered no evidence beyond her own word, and that her expert's opinion addressed a hypothetical scenario.

Key holdings

1. A toxicological opinion sent after the hearing by the Athlete's father is inadmissible under Article R56 of the CAS Code. There was no agreement of the parties and no exceptional circumstance. The father is not a party, and the opinion could have been obtained before the evidentiary phase closed. ¶¶ 65–68
2. The Athlete did not establish out-of-competition use on the balance of probabilities. Her sample showed cocaine at 24.2 ng/mL, more than double the 10 ng/mL level that WADA's Guidance Notice treats as likely to correspond to in-competition use. Her expert admitted he knew nothing about how ingestion occurred and that he was partly in a sphere of speculation. ¶¶ 74–80
3. Nor did she show that use was unrelated to sport performance. There was no evidence that she attended the club, met the man or had a spiked drink; the scenario rested only on her testimony, and she had changed her explanation several times. Neither Article 10.2.4.1 nor Article 10.2.4.2 applies. ¶¶ 81–93
4. The presumption of intent for a non-Specified Substance was not rebutted. Protestations of innocence, a clean record, lack of sporting incentive and speculation about sabotage or spiking are not enough; specific, objective and persuasive evidence is required. The four-year base sanction applies. ¶¶ 94–97, 100
5. Proportionality gives no ground for a further reduction, because the World Anti-Doping Code, on which the POLADA rules are based, has repeatedly been found proportional. ¶ 99
6. The ineligibility runs from the provisional suspension of 2 January 2024, with full credit under Article 10.13.2.1, as the Appealed Decision held. The Athlete made no submission on fairness, so the disqualification of results from sample collection to the provisional suspension, with forfeiture of points, medals and prizes, is confirmed. ¶¶ 106, 113
7. The appeal is dismissed and the Disciplinary Panel decision of 10 October 2024 is confirmed. The costs paragraphs of the operative part are not published. Operative part, ¶¶ 1–5

Procedural history

1. 10 December 2023In-competition doping control: Adverse Analytical Finding for cocaine and benzoylecgonine.
2. 2 January 2024POLADA provisionally suspends the Athlete.
3. 16 January 2024The Athlete is charged with an anti-doping rule violation.
4. 10 October 2024POLADA Disciplinary Panel finds violations of Articles 2.1 and 2.2 and imposes four years of ineligibility; reasons follow on 6 November 2024.
5. 27 November 2024Statement of Appeal filed with CAS.
6. 8 January 2025Legal aid granted to the Athlete.
7. 17 January 2025Sole Arbitrator Stefano Bastianon appointed; Panel constituted.
8. 28 May 2025Hearing by videoconference.
9. 10 September 2025The Sole Arbitrator rules the unsolicited submission of 21 August 2025 inadmissible.
10. 24 September 2025Award: appeal dismissed, four-year ineligibility from 2 January 2024 confirmed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Stefano Bastianon Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution

For the claimant

Lukasz Klimczyk

For the respondent

Lukasz Krych

Experts

Andrzej Kwaśnica (claimant) · Milena Majchrzak-Stalik (claimant)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• anti-doping
• cocaine
• benzoylecgonine
• Substance of Abuse
• out-of-competition use
• boxing
• POLADA Anti-Doping Rules
• Article 10.2.4.1
• presumption of intent
• non-Specified Substance
• drink spiking
• sabotage
• WADA Guidance Notice
• proportionality
• provisional suspension credit
• Article R56 CAS Code
• late evidence
• disqualification of results

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