The case involves Zivile Balciunaite, a Lithuanian marathon runner, who was found to have violated anti-doping regulations after testing positive for exogenous testosterone following her victory at the 2010 European Championships in Barcelona. The Lithuanian Athletics Federation (LAF) and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) were the respondents in the arbitration. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel examined the scientific and procedural aspects of the case, ultimately upholding the two-year ban imposed on Balciunaite. The laboratory analysis confirmed the presence of exogenous testosterone in her urine samples, a prohibited substance under the World Anti-Doping Code. Balciunaite argued that bacterial contamination, physical stress from the marathon, or hormonal imbalances could have altered the test results. However, the panel dismissed these claims, stating that bacterial activity could not transform endogenous substances into exogenous ones and that there was no scientific evidence linking marathon running or hormonal imbalances to elevated testosterone levels affecting the Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry (IRMS) test results.
The panel also addressed the performance-enhancing effects of testosterone, noting its role in recovery and hematocrit stabilization, which indirectly benefits endurance athletes. Since testosterone is not a specified substance under the World Anti-Doping Code, its performance-enhancing potential was deemed irrelevant to the violation. The panel emphasized the principle of strict liability, holding that athletes bear responsibility for prohibited substances in their bodies and must demonstrate "utmost caution" to avoid ingestion, which Balciunaite failed to prove. Procedurally, Balciunaite was notified of the adverse findings and given opportunities to explain or request further testing. Despite her objections and requests for re-analysis, the LAF Disciplinary Commission imposed a two-year ban, effective from September 2010. The CAS upheld this decision, concluding that the evidence clearly established the presence of exogenous testosterone and that Balciunaite’s arguments did not provide a valid defense.
Balciunaite also raised procedural concerns, arguing that her right to be present during the B sample analysis was violated. She claimed she was not informed of the entire process and left early, but the panel found that she had been given fair opportunity to participate and that the laboratory adhered to all necessary standards. The panel rejected her claims of procedural irregularities, including delays in the hearing process and alleged discrepancies in laboratory documentation. Expert testimonies from Prof. Ayotte, Dr. Saugy, and Prof. Segura supported the reliability of the laboratory’s findings, while Dr. Garbaras, the appellant’s expert, lacked experience in anti-doping testing. The panel concluded that the testing methods were accurate and complied with relevant standards, dismissing Balciunaite’s technical arguments about peak heights, retention times, and measurement inaccuracies.
Balciunaite further argued that her hormonal imbalance, caused by marathon running and an endocrinal disorder, could explain the test results. She also cited her use of Duphaston, a synthetic progesterone, as a potential factor. However, experts testified that physical activity does not affect IRMS results and that Duphaston does not convert into testosterone or its metabolites. The panel found her medical explanations unconvincing, noting that her diagnosis and Duphaston use were only disclosed after the adverse finding. The IRMS results provided definitive evidence of exogenous testosterone, leaving no reasonable doubt. The panel upheld the adverse finding, rejecting Balciunaite’s claims regarding physical activity, hormonal disorders, and Duphaston as explanations for the doping violation.
The panel also addressed Balciunaite’s request for a reduced sanction under the no significant fault or negligence provision. She cited her age, the ingestion of Duphaston with certain foods, and procedural issues, but the panel found her explanations insufficient. The strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations requires athletes to bear full responsibility for prohibited substances in their systems unless they can prove no fault or negligence. The panel concluded that none of the circumstances presented by Balciunaite qualified as truly exceptional, and thus she could not benefit from a reduced sanction. The appeal was dismissed, and the two-year ban was upheld. The ruling reinforces the strict application of anti-doping regulations, emphasizing that reductions in sanctions are rare and require compelling evidence of exceptional circumstances.