The case involves an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) by an athlete sanctioned for doping after testing positive for nandrolone metabolites during the 1998 Powerman Long Distance World Championships in Zofingen, Switzerland. The athlete's urine samples showed concentrations of norandrosterone and noretiocholanone at 3 ng/ml, falling within the "grey zone" (2.0–5.0 ng/ml), where endogenous production of these substances by the human body cannot be ruled out. The athlete argued that such low concentrations do not conclusively prove external ingestion of nandrolone and cited scientific evidence supporting endogenous production in certain cases, particularly linked to a high-fat diet. He also highlighted procedural irregularities, including the use of incorrect doping control forms and incomplete reporting of the "B" sample analysis.
The CAS panel acknowledged the scientific uncertainty surrounding low concentrations of nandrolone metabolites, noting that the "grey zone" complicates the presumption of external ingestion. While strict liability in doping cases is essential for fairness and health protection, the panel emphasized that sports federations must still establish the wrongful act and its causal link. In "grey zone" cases, additional evidence is required to support the presumption of doping or exclude other causes. The athlete voluntarily underwent further testing, which detected low levels of the metabolites, reinforcing the possibility of endogenous production. The panel also considered procedural flaws, such as the lack of specific gravity and pH data in the doping control forms and the absence of concentration details in the "B" sample report.
The International Triathlon Union (ITU) defended its procedures, arguing that minor deviations did not invalidate the findings, as the core purpose of confirming prohibited substances was met. They maintained that the detected levels of nandrolone metabolites (exceeding 2 ng/ml) were conclusive evidence of doping, per IOC Medical Committee guidelines. The CAS examined both procedural and scientific arguments, ruling that minor procedural departures did not undermine the reliability of the findings. However, the panel recognized the evolving scientific understanding of endogenous production and the need for clearer standards in handling "grey zone" cases.
The CAS ultimately concluded that the athlete had established a reasonable probability that the metabolites were naturally produced, creating sufficient doubt to warrant lifting the sanctions. The ruling emphasized the importance of scientific evidence and procedural fairness, advocating for a balanced approach that considers both legal principles and scientific uncertainty. The appeal was upheld, the sanctions were canceled, and the Respondent was ordered to reimburse half of the Court Office fee. Each party bore its own costs, as the Respondent had acted in accordance with existing guidelines. The decision highlights the need for updated scientific guidelines and additional testing in "grey zone" cases to ensure fair and just anti-doping procedures.