Fri, May 29, 2026
World Athletics v Patricia Álvarez Pérez
A decision in the case of World Athletics (WA) against Ms Patricia Álvarez Pérez has been issued by the Disciplinary and Appeals Tribunal (DAT).
Ms Álvarez is a Spanish middle- and long-distance road runner competing in events sanctioned by WA and the Spanish Athletics Federation.
The matter arose from an In-Competition Doping Control conducted on 29 March 2025 at the 32nd Azkoitia-Azpeitia Diego García Memorial half marathon, a World Athletics Label Road Race held in Spain, where Ms Álvarez finished third. On that date, Ms Álvarez provided a urine Sample, the analysis of which by the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”)-accredited laboratory in Barcelona revealed the presence of Furosemide, a diuretic and masking agent listed under category S5 of the 2025 WADA Prohibited List as a Specified Substance prohibited at all times.
Ms Álvarez did not request analysis of the B Sample. On 14 July 2025, the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) issued Ms Álvarez with a Notice of Charge for violations of Rule 2.1 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules (ADR), relating to the Presence of a Prohibited Substance in an Athlete’s Sample, and Rule 2.2 ADR, relating to the Use of a Prohibited Substance.
Following Ms Álvarez’s request that the matter be determined by way of a hearing, the case was referred for adjudication before the DAT. On 20 November 2025, the Chairman of the DAT, Mr Charles Hollander KC, appointed Mr Eduardo Amorim as Chair of the Panel. As neither Party requested that the matter be determined by a three-member Panel, the case proceeded before Mr Amorim sitting as Sole Arbitrator.
During the AIU’s investigation and in subsequent submissions, Ms Álvarez did not dispute the Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) or the ingestion of Furosemide, maintaining that the ingestion resulted from an accidental medication mix-up. Ms Álvarez initially explained that she had mistakenly consumed a Furosemide tablet belonging to a family member after confusing it with Ibuprofen while preparing for training early in the morning on 28 March 2025. She later revised her account, explaining that she had inadvertently packed the tablet in her luggage and subsequently consumed it in her hotel room on the morning of the Competition on 29 March 2025. In support of her explanation, Ms Álvarez relied upon photographs of medication packaging, prescription records relating to family members, census documentation confirming cohabitation arrangements, and witness testimony.
At the hearing on 13 April 2026, Ms Álvarez submitted that she had established the source of the Prohibited Substance and that her conduct amounted to No Significant Fault or Negligence pursuant to Rule 10.6.1(a) ADR. She further argued that, because sport was not her primary occupation and she worked professionally as a physical therapist, she should be treated as a Recreational Athlete for sanctioning purposes.
The AIU submitted that Ms Álvarez had committed Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) under Rules 2.1 and 2.2 ADR and that the standard sanction of a two-year period of Ineligibility should apply. While accepting that the ingestion of Furosemide was not intentional, the AIU maintained that Ms Álvarez had failed to establish No Significant Fault or Negligence because she had not exercised an appropriate standard of care in storing, packing, and consuming medication. The AIU further submitted that Ms Álvarez did not satisfy the requirements to be treated as a Recreational Athlete under the ADR.
The Sole Arbitrator accepted, on the balance of probabilities, that the source of the Furosemide had been established and that the substance entered Ms Álvarez’s system through the mistaken ingestion of medication belonging to a family member. However, the Sole Arbitrator concluded that Ms Álvarez had not established No Significant Fault or Negligence. In particular, the Sole Arbitrator found that Ms Álvarez stored medication in a cabinet shared with family members, packed medication for travel without verifying the blister packaging, and consumed medication in poor lighting conditions without checking the packaging prior to ingestion. The Sole Arbitrator considered that such conduct fell below the standard of care reasonably expected of an athlete subject to Doping Control and created a foreseeable risk of ingesting a Prohibited Substance.
The Sole Arbitrator also rejected Ms Álvarez’s submission that her status as a non-professional athlete justified a lower standard of care, holding that athletes who voluntarily compete under the jurisdiction of WA and their national federation remain subject to the same anti-doping obligations regardless of whether sport constitutes their primary occupation.
The Sole Arbitrator therefore concluded that Ms Álvarez had committed ADRVs pursuant to Rules 2.1 and 2.2 ADR. In accordance with Rule 10.2.2 ADR, where a violation involves a Specified Substance and is not intentional, the applicable period of Ineligibility is two years unless grounds for elimination or reduction are established. As no such grounds were established in this case, a two-year period of Ineligibility was imposed. Credit was granted for the period of Provisional Suspension already served, with the period of Ineligibility commencing on 14 July 2025.
Pursuant to Rules 9, 10.1, and 10.10 ADR, Ms Álvarez’s results obtained at the Competition on 29 March 2025 were disqualified, together with all resulting Consequences, including forfeiture of medals, titles, points, awards, and prize money.
Sport Resolutions is the independent Secretariat to the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal.
A copy of the full decision can be accessed via the related links tab on the right-hand side.
