The case involves a doping violation by Cameroonian athlete M., who tested positive for norandrosterone, a metabolite of the prohibited substance nandrolone, during an out-of-competition urine test in April 2002. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) contested the Cameroonian Athletics Federation's (CMR) initial decision to issue a warning instead of a two-year suspension, leading to an appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The athlete denied knowingly ingesting any banned substance, attributing the positive test to vitamin contamination and later to the consumption of wild boar meat, which she claimed contained nandrolone precursors. The IAAF maintained that the athlete’s explanations were insufficient and insisted on upholding the standard two-year suspension under strict liability rules, which hold athletes responsible for any prohibited substances in their bodies regardless of intent.
The CAS panel addressed procedural and substantive issues, including the admissibility of late evidence submitted by the IAAF. While the athlete initially did not contest the doping violation, her defense later reopened the case by challenging the offense itself, prompting the IAAF to present additional evidence. The panel dismissed the athlete’s objection, ruling that the scope of the appeal had evolved to include the merits of the doping offense. On the substantive issue, the panel found the IAAF had met its burden of proof, confirming the doping violation. The athlete’s claim of unintentional ingestion through wild boar meat was deemed credible but insufficient to qualify as "truly exceptional circumstances" under IAAF rules, which are required for a reduced sanction. The panel noted that such cases of inadvertent consumption are common and do not warrant leniency under anti-doping regulations.
Despite acknowledging the athlete’s clean record and lack of intent, the panel upheld the two-year suspension, emphasizing the strict liability principle in doping cases. The decision annulled the CMR’s earlier ruling and denied the athlete’s request for a reduced suspension, though she retained the right to appeal directly to the IAAF Council. The case underscores the challenges athletes face in contesting doping violations based on inadvertent ingestion and the limited scope for mitigating sanctions under anti-doping rules. The CAS affirmed its jurisdiction and ruled in favor of the IAAF, reinforcing the stringent application of doping regulations.