The case involves an appeal by athlete F. against a four-year suspension imposed by Disabled Sports USA (DS/USA) following a doping violation during the 11th Paralympic Summer Games in Sydney. The athlete tested positive for nandrolone metabolites in urine samples provided on October 21 and 25, 2000. The Australian Drug Testing Laboratory (ADTL) reported the presence of the prohibited substance but did not specify the exact concentration. Based on this finding, the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) suspended F. for four years, including exclusion from the 2004 Paralympic Games. The International Sports Federation for the Disabled (ISOD) later upheld this decision, and DS/USA enforced the suspension, barring F. from all sanctioned events.
F. appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), requesting a stay of the suspension to participate in the International Challenge Track and Field Championship scheduled for August 7–12, 2001, in California. The athlete argued that missing this event would cause irreparable harm, as it was the only major competition in the Western Hemisphere for disabled athletes that year, offering financial benefits and the opportunity to set world records. The IPC opposed the request, citing F.’s prior agreement to the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games Eligibility Form and the IPC Medical Code, which prohibits recourse against doping sanctions.
The CAS considered the urgency of the case and the principles for granting interim relief, including the risk of irreparable harm, the likelihood of success in the appeal, and the balance of interests between the parties. The court noted the lack of detailed laboratory documentation, particularly the exact concentration of nandrolone metabolites, which was crucial for assessing whether the levels exceeded the 2 ng/ml threshold. Additionally, a hearing before the championship was impossible due to IPC office closures until August 10, 2001. The CAS concluded that denying interim relief would irreversibly prevent F. from competing, while granting it would minimally affect the respondents’ interests.
The CAS granted F.’s request for a stay of the suspension until the final award, allowing participation in the championship. The order was issued without costs. The decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness, including access to complete evidence, and the need to balance athlete rights with anti-doping enforcement.