In professional sport, there is a paradox that many fans find difficult to باور: a product purchased entirely legally—whether from a pharmacy or online—can lead to a violation of anti-doping regulations. This is not about the intentional use of performance-enhancing substances, but rather a far more complex issue situated at the intersection of sports law, consumer law, and pharmaceutical regulation.

Borderline Products – Invisible Risk

The concept of borderline products refers to items that are, on the one hand, legally available on the market, and on the other, may contain substances listed on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List. A key feature of this system is its dynamic nature. The list is updated annually and may include substances banned at all times as well as those prohibited only in-competition. Changes can occur suddenly, without any transitional period, meaning that a substance used in accordance with medical advice can overnight become the source of serious legal consequences.

The greatest risk is associated with dietary supplements. Unlike medicinal products, they are not subject to equally stringent regulatory controls. As a result, the actual composition of a product may differ from what is declared on the label. Data published by Informed Sport indicates that a significant proportion of supplements available on the market may contain undeclared prohibited substances, often due to cross-contamination during the manufacturing process. From an anti-doping perspective, however, this is irrelevant—the only factor that matters is the presence of the substance in the athlete’s body.

This risk also extends to medications, food products, and even topical applications such as dermatological creams. The line between a safe and a risky product is therefore extremely thin and often invisible to the athlete.

The Iga Świątek Case – How a Violation Occurs

Against this background, the case of Iga Świątek takes on particular importance. In 2024, trimetazidine—a substance prohibited by WADA—was detected in her anti-doping sample. It was later established that the likely source was a contaminated batch of melatonin used to regulate sleep. The product itself was legal, widely available, and raised no concerns. The issue lay in what it contained unintentionally.

Situations like this demonstrate that in professional sport, risk does not always stem from the athlete’s decisions, but often from systemic shortcomings in the market for consumer products.

The Principle of Strict Liability – The Foundation of the System

At the core of the anti-doping framework lies the principle of strict liability. This means that an athlete is responsible for any substance found in their body, regardless of intent or awareness. The system is designed this way to avoid evidentiary difficulties related to proving intent.

At the same time, the rules allow for a reduction of sanctions if the athlete can demonstrate no fault or no significant fault. In practice, however, this requires the presentation of detailed and often highly technical evidence.

Three Legal Regimes – One Problem

This case highlights the tension between three areas of law. Consumer law assumes that a product placed on the market is safe. Sports law, by contrast, places the entire risk on the athlete. In the background lies civil law, which raises the question of manufacturer liability for defective products.

This third dimension is likely to gain importance, particularly in light of the increasing economic value of athletes’ careers and the potential for compensation claims.

The Importance of Early Action and Evidence

In anti-doping proceedings, the first days following notification of an adverse analytical finding are crucial. It is essential to secure packaging, batch numbers, purchase records, and to conduct independent laboratory testing of the specific product. Ultimately, it is evidence—not explanations—that determines the outcome of a case.

A New Direction: Compliance in Sport

Cases of this kind affect the entire sports ecosystem. Athletes are becoming more cautious, manufacturers face increasing pressure, and clubs and federations are beginning to implement compliance procedures. In this context, the role of the sports lawyer is evolving—shifting from reactive crisis management to proactive risk prevention.

Conclusion – Legal Support in Doping Matters

The case of Iga Świątek demonstrates that the boundary between a legal product and an illegal anti-doping result is exceptionally thin—and that crossing it is not always a matter of intent. It is a real risk faced by every athlete, regardless of their level of professionalism.

If you find yourself in a similar situation, have doubts regarding supplements, medications, or anti-doping procedures, or require support during proceedings, it is essential to act quickly and strategically. Our law firm specializes in sports law and assists athletes in navigating these complex processes, protecting their interests, and minimizing legal consequences.

Sources:

1. World Anti-Doping Agency. (2021). World Anti-Doping Code 2021. 
2. World Anti-Doping Agency. (2025). Prohibited List 2025. 
3. Informed Sport. (n.d.). Supplement testing and certification reports.
4. International Tennis Integrity Agency. (2025, May 2). Cases explained: Iga Świątek [Video]. ITIA. https://www.itia.tennis/learn/videos/cases-explained-iga-swiatek/
5. Paul David. (2017). A guide to the World Anti-Doping Code: A fight for the spirit of sport (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
6. International Olympic Committee. (2018). IOC consensus statement: Dietary supplements and the high-performance athlete. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 52(7), 439–455.
7. Ustawa z dnia 25 sierpnia 2006 r. o bezpieczeństwie żywności i żywienia (Dz.U. 2006 nr 171 poz. 1225).