The case involves wrestler L., who appealed a two-year suspension imposed by the Fédération Internationale des Luttes Associées (FILA) after testing positive for nandrolone metabolites during the XXVII Olympic Games in Sydney. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) disqualified L., revoked his gold medal, and excluded him from the Games, leading FILA to enforce the suspension. L. appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the positive test resulted from contaminated nutritional supplements rather than intentional doping. The CAS panel, comprising arbitrators Yves Fortier, Stephan Netzle, and Jan Paulsson, reviewed the case alongside L.'s appeal against the IOC. While acknowledging the strict liability principle in doping cases, the panel considered L.'s unblemished career and the likelihood of unintentional ingestion as mitigating factors. They reduced the suspension, highlighting the CAS's discretion to adjust sanctions for fairness. The ruling emphasized the balance between enforcing anti-doping rules and recognizing exceptional circumstances.
The jurisdictional framework for such appeals is outlined in FILA's (now United World Wrestling) regulations, which designate the CAS as the final appellate authority. The case also examined inconsistencies between FILA's doping definitions and the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code (OMAC), with the panel ruling that OMAC prevails for Olympic-related cases. Despite L.'s claim of supplement contamination, he provided no concrete evidence, and the panel noted the well-known risks of such products in sports. The IOC Medical Commission suggested a likely contaminated supplement but lacked definitive proof. The panel found L. failed to prove lack of intent or negligence, yet reduced the suspension to one year due to mitigating factors, including the IOC's observations and the severe personal consequences L. faced. The decision underscores the challenges athletes face in proving unintentional doping and the importance of accountability in supplement use. The CAS partially granted L.'s appeal, modifying FILA's decision to reflect the reduced suspension period from September 30, 2000, to September 29, 2001. The ruling highlights the need for clearer anti-doping regulations and greater awareness of supplement risks in sports.