The document details a significant doping case involving Russian cross-country skier L. during the 2002 Winter Olympics. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled against L. after she was found to have used darbepoetin, a prohibited substance classified as an analogue of erythropoietin (EPO) under the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code (OMAC). Although darbepoetin was not explicitly listed in the OMAC, it was deemed prohibited because it is an artificial substance not naturally produced by the human body. L. was randomly selected for drug testing before a relay race, and her blood sample showed hemoglobin levels exceeding the IOC's permissible limit, leading to her exclusion from the race. Subsequent urine testing confirmed the presence of darbepoetin. The IOC Disciplinary Commission concluded that L. had committed a doping offense, resulting in her disqualification from the 30 km race she had won, the withdrawal of her medal, and her exclusion from the Games. The International Ski Federation (FIS) later suspended her for two years.
L. contested the reliability of the testing method, arguing that the procedure for detecting darbepoetin was experimental and scientifically unproven. She also raised concerns about potential contamination during the B sample analysis. The IOC defended the testing methodology, asserting that the same reliable test for EPO could detect darbepoetin and that the A sample alone was sufficient to confirm the violation. The CAS panel dismissed L.'s arguments, upholding the IOC's decision and finding the testing method scientifically sound. L. also sought the recusal of the panel members, but this was denied as it did not comply with procedural rules. The Swiss Federal Tribunal later dismissed L.'s appeal, confirming the CAS award.
The case highlighted the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations and the scientific validity of testing methods for detecting prohibited substances. The ruling reinforced the principle that analogues of banned substances are treated with the same severity as the substances themselves. The testing protocol for EPO involved initial blood samples analyzed for hemoglobin and reticulocyte levels, followed by urine tests if thresholds were exceeded. The IOC had refined its testing methods by November 2001, requiring both blood and urine samples to show abnormal results for a positive doping finding. The Panel emphasized that the presence of darbepoetin in L.'s sample, without medical justification, constituted a violation of anti-doping rules.
Expert witnesses, including Professor Don Catlin and Dr. Steve Elliott, testified in favor of the reliability of the combined test, particularly for detecting darbepoetin due to its molecular similarity to EPO. In contrast, Professor Durmanov questioned the test's validation, arguing it lacked sufficient peer review, but his testimony was dismissed as influenced by frustrations over funding disparities in anti-doping research. The Panel accepted the evidence supporting the reliability of the combined test, reinforcing its use in anti-doping efforts. The case underscored the importance of scientifically validated testing methods in maintaining fair competition and the strict liability principle in doping violations.
The document also provides a detailed explanation of the testing procedures for erythropoietin and its analogues, including darbepoetin. These substances enhance athletic performance by increasing red blood cell production, thereby improving oxygen delivery to muscles. Testing at the 2002 Olympic Winter Games involved an indirect blood test and a direct urine test. The indirect blood test, known as the "Sydney on-score," measured five blood parameters to detect abnormal erythropoietic activity. Athletes with high scores underwent further urine testing. L.’s on-score was the highest recorded at the Games, triggering the urine test. The direct urine test involved sample preparation, isoelectric focusing, immuno-blotting, and visualization, confirming the presence of darbepoetin in L.’s sample.
The UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory, which conducted these tests, is ISO-certified, ensuring the reliability and accuracy of the methodology. Professor Catlin confirmed that the test effectively distinguishes darbepoetin from recombinant EPO without modification and eliminates false positives. Additional studies post-2002 Winter Olympics further validated the test's reliability. The Panel concluded that the testing methodology was scientifically sound and reliable, leading to the dismissal of L.'s appeal and the confirmation of the IOC Executive Board's decision. The Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld the original ruling, rejecting the appeal and reinforcing the integrity of anti-doping efforts in sports.