The case involves an Italian swimmer, S., who was subjected to a doping control during an event in Lyon on 24 January 1999. The tests, conducted by an IOC-accredited laboratory, revealed elevated testosterone levels and a T/E ratio exceeding the permitted limit. Initially, the Italian Swimming Federation chose not to sanction S. in February 2000, but the FINA Doping Panel later imposed a four-year ban on 25 March 2000 for violating FINA Doping Control Rules. S. appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 4 May 2000, seeking a stay of execution to compete in the European Swimming Championships and qualify for the Sydney Olympics.
The CAS evaluated the request for provisional measures, considering the reliability of the test results and potential harm to S. The swimmer contested the findings, arguing discrepancies between the "A" and "B" samples suggested degradation, supported by expert opinions. These experts claimed the variations in testosterone and epitestosterone levels could invalidate the results. However, FINA countered that the doping offense was not solely based on the T/E ratio but also on isotopic ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) analyses, which provided direct evidence of exogenous testosterone use.
The CAS President acknowledged the sample discrepancies but found they did not conclusively invalidate the results. The IRMS analysis, confirmed by the laboratory, strongly indicated exogenous testosterone use, a point the FINA Doping Panel had overlooked. The CAS concluded that S.'s arguments were insufficient to justify a stay, as the likelihood of success on the merits was low, and FINA's interest in enforcing anti-doping regulations outweighed the swimmer's immediate competitive interests.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed the application for provisional measures, allowing the four-year ban to stand. The order was issued without costs, emphasizing the need to uphold anti-doping rules while recognizing procedural complexities. The decision highlights the importance of scientific evidence in doping cases and the balance between athlete rights and regulatory enforcement. The ruling dismissed the provisional measures application and declared no costs, prioritizing regulatory compliance over interim relief for the appellant. The case underscores the rigorous standards applied in doping disputes and the challenges athletes face in contesting such findings.