Editing Openai/6923772e-905c-8010-9104-b8d007833c93 (section)

=== ## ===

CAS emphasized that the athlete must show the asserted scenario is more likely than not.

===== - Lot numbers 22092117150213 (NSF-certified) and 22092117150234 were manufactured together on 21 September 2022, same line, same batch — therefore, if contamination occurred during production, both should test positive. ➤ But only the two open jars supplied by the athlete contained GW1516. ➤  Sealed jars from the same lot tested negative. =====
* SMRTL found non-homogeneous contamination, with much higher concentrations on gummy surfaces → not consistent with contamination within the production slurry.
* Scientific testimony confirmed that manufacturing contamination would produce homogeneous distribution, which was absent.
* Better Nutritionals’ facility had NSF GMP certification and had passed audits immediately before production.
* No evidence of a contamination vector at the plant (raw materials, cleaning tools, mixing tanks).

CAS conclusion:
➡ Manufacturing contamination not more likely than not.

==== CAS did not need to conclude that adulteration occurred, but only that the Athlete’s theory was not more probable than alternative scenarios. ====

Critical factors:
* Container 2 (the jar with very low levels of GW1516) was not the Athlete’s, but shipped to the athlete’s father’s veterinary address, then forwarded to the athlete — all undisclosed until CAS.
* Testimony from the Athlete and family was contradictory, internally inconsistent, and lacked clarity on crucial dates, access to jars, and who handled them.
* WhatsApp messages between Athlete’s father and coach Phiri on 10 August 2023 showed both men discussing GW1516’s 40-day excretion window, undermining claims they did not know about the substance.
* Lausanne Laboratory demonstrated adulteration was easily achievable, even without advanced tools.
* Athlete’s father, a licensed veterinarian, had ability to access controlled substances.
* GW1516 is readily purchasable online in pure form.

CAS conclusion:
➡ Athlete failed to establish his version was the most likely scenario.

==== Without proving the source, the Athlete could not even reach the second requirement (NSFN). ====
CAS held that Rule 10.6.1 could not apply.

==== CAS applied the strict jurisprudence: ====
* Protestations of innocence carry no weight without concrete supporting evidence.
* Athlete did not provide robust evidence excluding intentional use or designed manipulation.
* Negative tests on 11 June and 28 July 2023 do not exclude intentional ingestion between those dates.
* WhatsApp messages and family inconsistencies raised further doubts.

CAS conclusion:
➡ Athlete failed to prove the ADRV was not intentional.