CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11416 — Andrés Mauricio Moreno Bedoya v. World Taekwondo

"Moreno Bedoya" · CAS upheld a two-year ban on a Colombian taekwondo athlete who tested positive for furosemide but failed to establish how the substance entered his system.

What happened in Moreno Bedoya

Andrés Mauricio Moreno Bedoya, a 23-year-old Colombian taekwondo athlete and 2022 Pan American Championship silver medallist, provided an in-competition urine sample on 3 July 2022 at the Pan Am Series 2 in Heredia, Costa Rica. The WADA-accredited Utah Laboratory reported an Adverse Analytical Finding for furosemide at an estimated concentration of 800 ng/ml. Furosemide is a diuretic and masking agent classified as a Specified Substance on the 2022 WADA Prohibited List. Both the A and B Samples confirmed the presence of furosemide. The ITA, on behalf of World Taekwondo, prosecuted the case before the CAS Anti-Doping Division, which on 25 April 2025 imposed a two-year period of ineligibility and disqualified all competitive results from 3 July 2022. The Athlete appealed to CAS, arguing sabotage of his water bottle, his cardiac condition making voluntary ingestion dangerous, procedural delays by the ITA under Article 4.2 ISRM, and violation of his presumption of innocence. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed the appeal in its entirety, confirming the two-year ban. The case matters because it reaffirms that establishing the specific source of a prohibited substance is an indispensable threshold requirement for any No Fault or Negligence or No Significant Fault or Negligence plea, and that Article 4.2 ISRM is a non-mandatory guideline whose breach does not invalidate anti-doping proceedings.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11416

On 3 July 2022, the Athlete provided an in-competition sample at the Pan Am Series 2 in Heredia, Costa Rica. On 12 August 2022, the Utah Laboratory reported an AAF for furosemide at 800 ng/ml. The ITA notified the Athlete on 30 August 2022. The Athlete waived his right to B Sample analysis by non-response, but the ITA later arranged B Sample analysis as a courtesy; on 21 March 2023, the B Sample confirmed the AAF. On 23 November 2022, the ITA issued a Notice of Charge. The Athlete agreed to have the case adjudicated by the CAS Anti-Doping Division. The ITA filed its Request for Disciplinary Proceedings on 9 February 2024. An oral hearing was held on 9 July 2024. On 25 April 2025, the CAS ADD imposed a two-year period of ineligibility and disqualified all competitive results from 3 July 2022. The Athlete filed his Statement of Appeal with CAS on 13 May 2025, within the 21-day deadline under Article 13.6.1 of the WT ADR. A remote hearing was held on 4 November 2025. The CAS award was issued on 15 April 2026.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11416

• Establishing how a prohibited substance entered an athlete's system is a threshold requirement and condition precedent to any plea of No Fault or Negligence or No Significant Fault or Negligence under the WT ADR definitions.
• An unsubstantiated sabotage theory — with no evidence identifying when, by whom, or with what product the alleged contamination occurred — is insufficient to establish the source of a prohibited substance on a balance of probabilities.
• Article 4.2 of the ISRM uses the word 'should' rather than 'shall', making the six-month Results Management timeline a non-mandatory guideline whose non-compliance does not invalidate anti-doping proceedings or affect the consequences imposed on an athlete.
• Once both the A and B Samples confirm the presence of a prohibited substance, the presumption of innocence is no longer applicable and cannot be said to have been breached.
• Where a violation involves a Specified Substance and intentionality is not alleged by the anti-doping organisation, the applicable period of ineligibility under Article 10.2.2 of the WT ADR is two years.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator identified the threshold question as whether the Athlete had established, on a balance of probabilities, how furosemide entered his system, since this is an express requirement in the WT ADR definitions of both No Fault or Negligence and No Significant Fault or Negligence. The Arbitrator found the definitions clear and unequivocal, consistent with CAS jurisprudence treating source-establishment as a 'threshold requirement' (CAS 2010/A/2277) and 'condition precedent' (CAS 2014/A/3615). The Athlete's cardiac condition and expert testimony from Dr. Díaz Castro were acknowledged as potentially relevant to intentionality but were held irrelevant to establishing the source of the substance. The sabotage theory was rejected as pure speculation: no evidence identified the time, perpetrator, product, or quantity involved, and the sole witness was not present in Costa Rica. The Arbitrator cited CAS OG 16/25 for the proposition that a possible scenario is not a probable one. On the ISRM timeliness argument, the Arbitrator distinguished 'should' from 'shall' and relied on CAS 2018/A/5885 & 5936 for the principle that guidelines are non-mandatory. On the presumption of innocence, the Arbitrator held it ceased to apply once both samples confirmed the AAF. The two-year sanction under Article 10.2.2 WT ADR was confirmed as WT had not alleged intentionality.

Why Moreno Bedoya matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces the strict CAS jurisprudential line that source-establishment is a non-negotiable threshold for any fault-reduction plea, leaving no room for speculative sabotage theories however sympathetic the athlete's circumstances. It also consolidates the principle that Article 4.2 ISRM is a best-practice guideline only, and clarifies that the presumption of innocence is exhausted once both A and B Samples confirm a prohibited substance, providing clear guidance for practitioners handling Specified Substance cases.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2020/A/7528 CAS 2020/A/7256, 7559 CAS 2010/A/2277 CAS 2014/A/3615 CAS OG 16/25 CAS 2018/A/5885 & 5936

Frequently asked questions about Moreno Bedoya

Why did Moreno Bedoya lose his appeal despite claiming his drink was sabotaged?

The Sole Arbitrator held that the sabotage theory was pure speculation: the Athlete provided no evidence identifying when the alleged contamination occurred, who committed it, what product was used, or what quantity was added. CAS jurisprudence, including CAS OG 16/25, requires that a scenario be probable, not merely possible, and the Athlete's counsel conceded at the hearing that they could not point to any specific person or time of sabotage.

Does an athlete's cardiac condition or medical history help reduce a doping ban under the WT ADR?

In Moreno Bedoya, the Sole Arbitrator acknowledged that the Athlete's cardiac condition (following a September 2019 surgery) made voluntary ingestion of furosemide unreasonable or even dangerous. However, this was held relevant only to intentionality — which World Taekwondo had never alleged — and did not assist in establishing how the prohibited substance entered the Athlete's system, which is the mandatory threshold requirement for any No Fault or Negligence or No Significant Fault or Negligence plea under the WT ADR.

Can an athlete get a doping case dismissed because the anti-doping organisation took more than six months to complete Results Management?

No. In Moreno Bedoya, the Sole Arbitrator held that Article 4.2 of the ISRM uses the word 'should' rather than 'shall', making the six-month timeline a non-mandatory guideline. Relying on CAS 2018/A/5885 & 5936, the Arbitrator confirmed that guidelines represent best practice and are not mandatory, so any failure to meet the six-month target has no bearing on whether an ADRV was committed or on the consequences to be imposed.

When does the two-year ineligibility period start in a CAS appeal that confirms a CAS ADD decision?

In Moreno Bedoya, the Sole Arbitrator applied the principle from CAS 2011/A/2515 that where the CAS decision entirely confirms the lower-level decision rather than replacing it, ineligibility finds its foundation in the lower-level decision. Since the Athlete had not served any provisional suspension, the two-year period was confirmed to start on 25 April 2025 — the date of the CAS ADD Appealed Decision — with credit for any period already served since that date.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.