The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld a lifetime ban imposed on Latvian rower R. for a doping violation involving nandrolone during the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. R. tested positive for nandrolone metabolites at levels four times the permitted threshold after winning a race, leading to his disqualification by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The case was subsequently transferred to the International Rowing Federation (FISA), which imposed a lifetime ban in accordance with its strict anti-doping rules. R. had signed a "rower commitment" acknowledging the severe penalties for doping violations, including lifetime bans for first offenses involving certain substances.
The CAS panel, composed of Peter Leaver, Jan Paulsson, and Jean-Philippe Rochat, found the lifetime ban justified under FISA's regulations, emphasizing the federation's long-standing commitment to eradicating doping. While other sports federations might impose lesser penalties, the panel deferred to FISA's disciplinary authority, noting that its rules were clear and publicly known. R. argued that the nandrolone in his system was produced endogenously rather than through external intake, but he failed to provide scientific evidence to support this claim. Tests conducted after the Games by the Moscow Anti-Doping Centre showed no nandrolone, but these results lacked proper documentation, rendering them unreliable. The panel concluded that R. had not rebutted the presumption of voluntary use under FISA's rules.
The panel also examined whether the lifetime ban was proportionate under Swiss law and CAS jurisprudence. While CAS generally requires sanctions to be proportionate, the panel noted that FISA's strict penalties were well-established and that R. had knowingly exposed himself to risk by consuming various supplements. The panel upheld the ban, stressing the importance of deterrence and consistency in anti-doping enforcement. It acknowledged that future scientific advancements might challenge current understandings of nandrolone production but stated that, based on existing evidence, the penalty was appropriate.
R. had multiple opportunities to present evidence before the FISA Commission of Enquiry, the FISA Executive Committee, and the CAS panel but failed to do so. The panel dismissed his appeal, filed on May 24, 2001, reinforcing the principle that lifetime bans can be proportionate for first offenses depending on the sport's regulatory framework. However, the panel expressed hope that R. might still contribute to Latvian rowing in a coaching capacity, provided proper safeguards were in place. The ruling underscores the strict liability nature of anti-doping regulations and the challenges athletes face in contesting positive test results without compelling evidence. The CAS decision ultimately affirmed the lifetime ban, emphasizing accountability while leaving room for future reconsideration based on scientific progress or R.'s potential contributions to the sport under appropriate conditions.