The case involves an appeal by a swimmer, referred to as B., against a doping sanction imposed by the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA). The dispute arose from an out-of-competition doping control conducted in November 1999 in Auckland, New Zealand. Urine samples were collected and sent to an IOC-accredited laboratory in Australia, but delays and improper documentation led to the samples being held at room temperature for an extended period. The A-sample tested positive for metabolites of nandrolone, specifically 19-norandrosterone (NA), at a level exceeding 4 ng/ml, while the B-sample showed approximately 3.5 ng/ml. The New Zealand Sports Drug Agency initially found B. guilty, but the Auckland District Court overturned this decision, citing violations of national regulations regarding sample handling. The New Zealand Court of Appeal later ruled that the delay in transportation constituted a material flaw, invalidating the test results. Despite this, FINA imposed a four-year suspension, retroactive to May 2000, and canceled B.'s results from the six months prior to the sample collection.
B. appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that FINA lacked authority to impose sanctions based on flawed test results and that the delays and improper handling invalidated the findings. FINA maintained that its decisions were not bound by national court rulings and that the adjusted test results still indicated doping. The CAS panel considered whether FINA was bound by national court decisions, the validity of the testing procedure, and the proportionality of the sanction. It concluded that FINA was not bound by the New Zealand court decisions, as it was not a party to those proceedings, and found no scientific evidence that the delay caused the presence of NA metabolites. The panel upheld FINA's authority to impose penalties but emphasized the need for proportionality.
The CAS hearing included expert testimonies from both sides, with B.'s experts arguing that bacterial activity during storage could have transformed testosterone into NA, leading to a false positive. FINA's experts countered that there was no evidence of significant degradation or bacterial activity. The panel dismissed B.'s theory as speculative, noting that NA levels decreased over time, contrary to the claim that degradation would increase them. It also rejected arguments about procedural deviations, such as the same person analyzing both A and B samples, finding no impact on the results' reliability. The panel upheld the 2 ng/ml threshold for NA, citing established studies and prior CAS rulings, and dismissed B.'s contention that endogenous production could explain the levels.
While acknowledging minor procedural irregularities, the panel concluded that the evidence reliably indicated NA levels above the threshold. It critiqued the severity of FINA's four-year sanction, referencing past CAS decisions where suspensions were reduced. The panel found mitigating circumstances, as B. was presumed to have acted negligently rather than intentionally, and reduced the suspension to two years, ending in May 2002. It also upheld the annulment of B.'s results from the six months prior to the test. The decision underscores the balance between enforcing anti-doping regulations and ensuring fairness, highlighting CAS's role in adjudicating such conflicts and its authority to adjust penalties based on case-specific factors. The ruling reaffirms the autonomy of international federations in disciplinary matters while stressing the importance of proportionality and procedural integrity.