Back
31 March 2025
The ITA reports that a sample collected by the ITA on behalf of World Aquatics during an unannouced out-of-competition doping control performed on 29 September 2024 yielded an adverse analytical finding¹ (AAF) for HCTZ. HCTZ is listed under class S5. diuretics and masking agents according to the Prohibited List of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and is banned at all times. HCTZ is considered a specified substance.
During the results management proceedings, the athlete was able to establish that the presence of HCTZ in her sample was caused by the intake of an anti-inflammatory prescription medication, which was confirmed to be contaminated with the banned diuretic. This permitted medication did not list HCTZ on its label, or any other prohibited substances. However, laboratory analyses subsequently conducted on the medication tablets confirmed the HCTZ contamination.
The athlete was also able to establish that she bore No Fault or Negligence² for the ADRV and, therefore, no period of ineligibility is imposed³. As the sample was collected out-of-competition, there are no competitive results to disqualify.
The athlete accepted the finding of the ADRV⁴, and the matter is considered as concluded from the perspective of World Aquatics and the ITA. Pursuant to the public disclosure requirement of the World Anti-Doping Code and the World Aquatics anti-doping rules, the case must be publicly reported.
The decision may be challenged before the appeal division of the Court of Arbitration of Sport by the parties with a right of appeal, namely WADA and the United States Anti-Doping Agency, in accordance with Article 13.2.3 of the World Aquatics anti-doping rules.
The ITA will not comment further on this case.
¹ A report from a WADA-accredited laboratory that, consistent with the International Standard for Laboratories, establishes in a sample the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers or evidence of the use of a prohibited method.
² ‘No Fault or Negligence’ is defined as “The Athlete or other Person’s establishing that he or she did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost caution, that he or she had Used or been administered the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method or otherwise violated an anti-doping rule”.
³ The default period of ineligibility for an anti-doping rule violation for the presence of a specified prohibited substance such as HTCZ is two years, unless the athlete shows mitigating factors, for instance ‘No Fault or Negligence’.
⁴ Athletes have the right to choose not to have their case referred to a hearing panel. In these instances, the anti-doping organisation will assess the athlete’s case file and establish the applicable consequences pursuant to the anti-doping rules and the athlete will have the right to accept the proposed consequences. If the athlete refuses the proposed consequences, the case is transferred to a hearing panel. This resolution mechanism is provided for in articles 8.1.3. of the World Aquatics anti-doping rules and 8.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code and is commonly referred to as an agreement on consequences and is deemed a World Aquatics’/ITA decision.
