The case revolves around a doping dispute involving USA Shooting and shooter Q. against the Union Internationale de Tir (UIT) following Q.'s positive test for ephedrine, a banned substance, at the 1994 World Cup skeet event in Cairo. Q. had taken cough syrup prescribed by a hotel doctor for bronchitis, unaware it contained ephedrine. Despite Q. and his coach acting in good faith and presenting the USOC Drug Control Card listing banned substances, the UIT Executive Committee imposed a three-month suspension and disqualified Q.'s results, citing strict liability and potential performance-enhancing effects of ephedrine. This decision also cost USA Shooting an Olympic quota place. USA Shooting and Q. appealed, arguing the UIT’s anti-doping regulations lacked a clear strict liability rule, requiring proof of intent for sanctions. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) emphasized that strict liability must be explicitly stated in rules and criticized the UIT for unclear or contradictory regulations. The CAS also noted procedural fairness issues, as Q. and USA Shooting lacked proper representation during the initial hearing, though this could be remedied on appeal. The panel underscored the need for predictable, transparent rules and rejected ad hoc interpretations. Ultimately, the CAS ruled in favor of Q., allowing him to retain his medal and reinstating the Olympic quota place, as the UIT failed to prove intent or establish a clear strict liability standard. The decision highlights the necessity of precise, fair rules in anti-doping enforcement and the importance of procedural fairness. The panel also addressed the broader implications of strict liability, acknowledging its merits in deterring doping but stressing it must be clearly articulated in regulations. The case underscores the tension between strict enforcement and fairness, with the CAS ultimately prioritizing the latter due to the UIT’s regulatory deficiencies. The panel declined to award costs, criticizing Q. for insufficient precautions but recognizing the appellants' victory was due to the UIT’s flawed regulations rather than substantive injustice. The final decision reinstated Q.’s gold medal and the Olympic quota place, though practical limitations might prevent its use. The case serves as a cautionary tale for sports governing bodies to adopt clear, consistent rules and ensure procedural fairness in anti-doping measures.