The case of Finnish cross-country skier Juha Lallukka, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), centered on allegations of doping involving human growth hormone (hGH). The dispute arose from a 2011 test showing elevated hGH isoform ratios in Lallukka’s blood samples, exceeding the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) decision limits. The Finnish Anti-Doping Agency (FINADA) initially suspended proceedings due to concerns about the reliability of WADA’s hGH test, influenced by the Veerpalu case, which questioned the scientific validity of the decision limits. The FINADA Supervisory Board eventually dismissed the charges, citing insufficient evidence to prove the violation. WADA appealed to the Finnish Sports Arbitration Board, presenting a new study (the McGill Study) to address reliability concerns, but the Board upheld the dismissal, stating the study lacked conclusive peer-reviewed validation.
WADA then appealed to CAS, arguing that updated 2014 hGH Guidelines and a peer-reviewed Joint Publication Paper, analyzing over 21,000 samples, resolved prior scientific uncertainties. The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, Mr. Quentin Byrne-Sutton, and Mr. Philippe Sands QC, admitted these documents as evidence, finding them relevant and uncontested. The panel emphasized its role was not to act as a scientific expert but to assess whether expert opinions were logically derived. It concluded WADA met its burden of proof, as Lallukka’s test results (3.74 for Kit 1 and 2.82 for Kit 2) significantly exceeded decision limits, making a false positive unlikely. The panel rejected Lallukka’s argument that applying 2014 Guidelines retroactively violated fairness, noting decision limits are evidentiary tools, not binding rules, and the 2014 thresholds closely mirrored 2010 limits.
Lallukka failed to provide evidence that external factors (e.g., exercise or stress) caused his elevated ratios or to explain discrepancies between his 2011 and 2012 test results. The panel also dismissed his claim that hGH use constituted an aggravating factor warranting a harsher sanction, as anti-doping rules do not differentiate between prohibited substances for first offenses. It imposed a standard two-year ineligibility period, crediting the 602 days Lallukka served under provisional suspension (October 2011–June 2013). However, the panel declined to disqualify his competitive results from the sample collection date (September 2011) onward, citing fairness given procedural delays and his provisional suspension. WADA was ordered to cover Lallukka’s legal costs (28,912.11 euros) but his request for damages (95,328.78 euros) was denied.
The case underscores the interplay between scientific evidence and legal standards in anti-doping enforcement. It highlights the importance of robust, peer-reviewed methodologies for decision limits and the need for procedural fairness, particularly when delays impact athletes’ careers. The panel’s ruling reaffirmed the validity of WADA’s hGH test while balancing the athlete’s rights, setting a precedent for handling similar disputes in future anti-doping cases.