The case involves Norwegian race walker Erik Tysse, who appealed a doping violation decision by the Norwegian Athletics Federation (NAF) and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). Tysse tested positive for Continuous Erythropoietin Receptor Activator (CERA), a banned substance, during a routine anti-doping test in Italy on May 1, 2010. The Rome Laboratory confirmed the presence of CERA in both the "A" and "B" samples, with a second opinion from Dr. Françoise Lasne of the Paris Laboratory supporting these findings. As a result, Tysse was temporarily suspended by the IAAF on July 8, 2010, and later sanctioned with a two-year ineligibility period starting from the suspension date.
Tysse appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the testing procedures did not comply with the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) Technical Document for EPO testing (TD2009EPO). He claimed the isoelectric focusing (IEF) analysis method used did not meet required criteria and that the stability test in the confirmation phase was flawed. Additionally, Tysse suggested iron injections, rather than CERA, could explain the adverse findings, though his experts provided no reliable evidence to support this claim. The CAS panel dismissed these arguments, noting the laboratory was presumed to have conducted the analysis correctly unless proven otherwise, and Tysse failed to rebut this presumption.
The panel also addressed Tysse's procedural requests, including the appointment of independent experts and re-analysis of his sample by the WADA laboratory in Cologne, Germany. While some procedural accommodations were made, the panel found no grounds to overturn the doping violation. Tysse further alleged a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, but the panel ruled that the "No Fault" and "No Significant Fault" provisions in the WADA Code and IAAF Rules provided sufficient protection against such claims.
Expert testimonies played a significant role in the case. Tysse's witnesses, including Dr. Franke and Dr. Heid, criticized the reliability of the SDS-PAGE analysis and the transparency of the testing process. Conversely, the IAAF's experts, such as Dr. Rabin and Prof. Botrè, defended the validity of the IEF method and the Rome Laboratory's adherence to international standards. Dr. Lasne emphasized that strenuous exercise or iron injections could not produce patterns resembling CERA, concluding doping was the only plausible explanation.
The CAS panel upheld the two-year ineligibility period, concluding the anti-doping procedures were properly followed and Tysse had not demonstrated significant departures from international standards. The decision reaffirmed the importance of adhering to established testing protocols and the burden on athletes to provide compelling evidence to challenge adverse findings. The case underscores the rigorous scientific and legal scrutiny applied in anti-doping investigations, highlighting the challenges of interpreting complex scientific data while maintaining fairness and integrity in sports.