The case involves Alain Baxter, a British alpine skier who won a bronze medal at the 2002 Winter Olympics but tested positive for Methamphetamine, leading to a doping violation. The International Ski Federation (FIS) determined the doping was inadvertent and imposed a three-month suspension. The dispute centered on how the suspension period should be calculated under FIS regulations, which stipulate that suspensions for inadvertent doping should be served during a fixed period within the actual or next competition season. The FIS initially split the suspension into three parts: one month at the end of the 2001/2002 season, one month during the Southern Hemisphere competition period, and one month at the start of the 2002/2003 season, ending on 15 December 2002. Baxter appealed, arguing the suspension should end on 18 August 2002, as he had already served part of it between the positive test date (23 February 2002) and the end of the 2001/2002 season (30 April 2002), with the remaining period served from 25 July to 18 August 2002. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was tasked with interpreting the FIS regulations. The CAS panel examined the FIS Medical Guide, International Ski Competition Rules, and FIS Points Rules, applying Swiss law. It concluded that suspensions should begin on the sample collection date and continue until the end of the ongoing competition season, be interrupted between seasons, and then resume in the next season until the full suspension period is served. The panel emphasized that the suspension must cover all international ski competitions as classified by the FIS, without selective application. The CAS found the FIS's initial calculation inconsistent with its regulations, as it unfairly extended the suspension beyond three months. The CAS ruled in favor of Baxter, adjusting the suspension to run from 23 February to 30 April 2002 (Northern Hemisphere season) and from 25 July to 18 August 2002 (Southern Hemisphere season). The decision highlighted the need for clarity, fairness, and consistency in applying doping sanctions, ensuring they align with the governing rules. The ruling underscored the importance of adhering to regulatory frameworks and avoiding arbitrary calculations that could disadvantage athletes. The CAS's decision modified the FIS's initial ruling, providing a more precise and fair application of the suspension period while maintaining the integrity of the disciplinary process. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of transparent and consistent enforcement of anti-doping regulations in sports.