The case involves Ralfs Freibergs, a Latvian ice hockey player, appealing a decision by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Disciplinary Commission (DC) after his urine sample tested positive for dehydrochlormethyl testosterone (Turinabol), a prohibited anabolic steroid, during the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. The DC disqualified Freibergs from the Men’s Play-Off Quarter Finals, revoked his 8th place diploma, and excluded him from further participation. Freibergs denied using banned substances but failed to provide an explanation for the adverse finding. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel addressed key legal issues, including the presumption of regularity under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), which assumes anti-doping procedures are correct unless proven otherwise. Freibergs challenged the validity of the Sochi laboratory’s analysis, arguing it was not registered as a legal entity in Russia, but the panel dismissed this as overly formalistic, emphasizing that WADC governs laboratory competence in international sports. The panel ruled that laboratory documentation must provide sufficient transparency, though corrections to initial analyses are permissible if properly explained. It also found no requirement for written consent to open the B-sample, as Freibergs had verbally consented via a team official. The panel upheld the DC’s decision despite only the chairman signing it, as no rule mandated all members’ signatures under Swiss law or IOC regulations. Freibergs’ procedural arguments, including alleged irregularities in sample handling and documentation, were rejected. The CAS panel confirmed the DC’s decision, concluding that anti-doping procedures were properly followed and the adverse analytical finding was valid. Freibergs further contested the opening of his B-sample, claiming lack of formal consent, but the panel ruled that notice to the Deputy Chief of Mission constituted valid notification. He also argued that negative test results before and after the Sochi event cast doubt on the positive test, but the panel dismissed this, noting the lack of scientific evidence and the Helsinki lab’s initial inability to detect the specific metabolite found in Sochi. Freibergs attempted to introduce late evidence from a re-analysis by the Lausanne lab, but the panel deemed it inadmissible due to unfair late disclosure and irrelevance. The panel also dismissed evidence from a private laboratory, Aegis Science Corporation, as it was not WADA-accredited and likely incapable of detecting the metabolite. The panel upheld the sanctions, finding no grounds for mitigation or aggravation, and dismissed Freibergs’ appeal, confirming the IOC’s decision. The case underscores the rigorous standards applied in anti-doping disputes and the challenges athletes face in contesting adverse findings.