The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on January 31, 2003, in the case between swimmer P. and the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA), concerning a doping violation involving nandrolone. The CAS panel, composed of Dr. Martin Schimke, Prof. Richard H. McLaren, and Dr. Denis Oswald, addressed several key issues, including the validity of the sampling procedure, the reliability of laboratory analyses, and the proportionality of the sanction. The panel clarified that it does not oversee laboratories accredited by international standardization bodies like ISO, IEC, or ILAC, nor does it enforce their guidelines. It emphasized that minor procedural deviations, such as the absence of "global uncertainty" in lab reports, did not invalidate the results.
The sampling procedure was scrutinized after P. raised concerns about the use of FIFA-marked bottles during the initial test, prompting a second test. The panel found no rule prohibiting a repeat test if doubts arose, and the second sample was collected properly, with a secure chain of custody maintained. Both A and B samples confirmed norandrosterone levels exceeding permissible limits, leading to P.'s provisional suspension and a subsequent four-year ban, retroactively canceling her results from the preceding six months. P. appealed, challenging the sampling procedure, the lab reports' lack of measurement uncertainty references, and the possibility of natural nandrolone production. However, she later withdrew her challenge to the chain of custody.
The CAS rejected P.'s arguments, upholding the validity of the sampling and lab results. It noted that strict liability applies in doping cases, meaning the mere presence of a prohibited substance constitutes an offense, regardless of intent. P. failed to prove significant procedural errors or provide an explanation for the substance's presence. The panel dismissed claims about measurement uncertainty, affirming the lab's adherence to scientific standards and the 5 ng/ml threshold for females as sufficiently cautious. It also rejected concerns about the sampling process being conducted twice, the accidental locking of a security kit, and the absence of security rings, deeming these issues irrelevant to the results' validity.
The panel upheld the four-year suspension as proportionate, citing precedents where severe sanctions were imposed for clear doping violations. It emphasized the strict anti-doping policies of FINA and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), reinforcing the principle of proportionality in sports law. The appeal was dismissed, and FINA's original decision was confirmed. The ruling underscored the CAS's commitment to enforcing anti-doping regulations strictly, ensuring penalties align with the severity of infringements. P.'s filing of July 8, 2002, was dismissed, and the FINA decision of June 3, 2002, was upheld, concluding the case without further mitigation.