The case revolves around an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) involving the International Shooting Sport Federation (ISSF) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) concerning the denial of a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for Austrian shooter Nadine Ungerank. Ungerank, diagnosed with Long QT Syndrome (LQTS) Type 1, was prescribed Atenolol, a beta-blocker prohibited in shooting sports, to mitigate cardiac risks. Initially, she received a TUE from the Austrian National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) but later competed without the ISSF-required TUE, leading to an adverse analytical finding. The ISSF imposed a reduced sanction but denied her subsequent TUE application, arguing she failed to meet all four WADA criteria, particularly the absence of performance enhancement.
Key legal principles addressed include procedural fairness, standing under Swiss law, and the necessity of identifying all proper respondents in CAS appeals. The panel emphasized that all four WADA TUE criteria must be strictly met, with the burden of proof on the athlete. It rejected comparisons to prior cases unless materially similar and noted that while human rights recognize a right to life, no equivalent right to sport exists. The ISSF's TUE committee found Ungerank partially met the health impairment criterion but failed to disprove performance enhancement, citing her competition results as evidence. The decision underscores the stringent application of anti-doping rules, even in medically justified cases, and highlights the balance between athlete health and competitive fairness.
The dispute also examined the performance-enhancing effects of beta-blockers in shooting sports. Beta-blockers, prohibited due to their potential to reduce heart rate and muscle tremors, are argued to enhance precision in shooting. The ISSF maintained that beta-blockers provide an unfair advantage, referencing studies and prior CAS rulings, while WADA contended that the evidence was outdated and inconclusive, particularly for long-term therapeutic use. WADA granted Ungerank a TUE, prioritizing her health, but the ISSF appealed, arguing the decision contradicted anti-doping regulations.
The case highlights procedural complexities, including whether Ungerank should have been named as a respondent in the appeal. The panel ruled the appeal admissible, noting Ungerank had opportunities to participate but chose not to. Ultimately, the panel upheld the ISSF's appeal, overturning WADA's decision, and reinstated the ISSF's original TUE denial. The ruling reaffirmed the strict application of anti-doping rules and the necessity of robust evidence to justify TUEs, balancing medical needs with competitive integrity. The decision underscores the challenges in reconciling athlete health with fair competition and the importance of procedural fairness in arbitration.