The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a doping case involving the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and Bulgarian athletes Vania Stambolova and Venelina Veneva, along with the Bulgarian Athletics Federation. The dispute arose from out-of-competition tests conducted in late 2006 and early 2007, which revealed abnormal testosterone levels in the athletes' urine samples. The IAAF requested Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry (IRMS) analysis, a method endorsed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), to confirm the presence of exogenous testosterone. The WADA-accredited laboratory in Lausanne confirmed the findings, leading to provisional suspensions. The athletes denied doping, attributing the results to a legal supplement called Tribulus Terrestris, but the IAAF deemed their explanations insufficient.
The Bulgarian Athletics Federation contested the IRMS results, arguing that further spectrometric analysis was necessary due to potential physiological or pathological factors. They relied on an expert report suggesting the supplement Tribestan, derived from Tribulus Terrestris, could skew the results. The IAAF, supported by additional expert opinions, maintained that the IRMS analysis alone was conclusive evidence of doping. The case escalated to CAS, where the panel, composed of Mr. Hans Nater, Prof. Richard McLaren, and Mr. Pantelis Dedes, evaluated the scientific and procedural arguments. The panel upheld the validity of IRMS as a standalone method for detecting exogenous testosterone, emphasizing that the burden of proof to rebut doping allegations lies with the athletes.
The athletes and the Bulgarian Federation raised procedural objections, including the admissibility of the appeal and the timing of the IRMS request. They argued the IAAF lacked reasonable grounds for the analysis, as the samples did not meet initial criteria like elevated testosterone/epitestosterone (T/E) ratios. The panel rejected these claims, affirming the IAAF's discretion in target testing, particularly given the athletes' history of missed tests. The panel also dismissed the athletes' scientific arguments, finding no credible evidence that Tribulus Terrestris, contraceptive tablets, or sunflower oil could produce the observed delta values in the IRMS analysis.
Ultimately, the CAS ruled in favor of the IAAF, imposing a two-year ineligibility period on the athletes, with credit for the provisional suspension already served. The decision reinforced the reliability of IRMS analysis and the principle of strict liability in anti-doping regulations. It underscored the importance of robust testing protocols to maintain fair competition while balancing athletes' rights. The case highlighted the challenges of interpreting scientific data in doping disputes and the need for clear, evidence-based adjudication. The ruling set a precedent for the use of IRMS as definitive proof of doping, reinforcing the integrity of anti-doping efforts in athletics.