The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding a doping violation by athlete B., represented by the Fédération Royale Marocaine d’Athlétisme (MAR). The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) appealed MAR's decision to exonerate B. after he tested positive for recombinant erythropoietin (r-EPO) during an out-of-competition test in Zurich in August 2002. The dispute centered on the validity of the testing method and the accreditation of the Laboratoire Suisse d'Analyse du Dopage (LAD), which conducted the tests. B.'s blood sample initially exceeded IAAF cutoff levels for hematocrit and hemoglobin, prompting further urine testing. The urine samples tested positive for r-EPO at 91% and 100%, leading to a provisional suspension. MAR’s Disciplinary Commission later cleared B., citing procedural violations and questioning the scientific validity of the r-EPO test.
The IAAF contested MAR’s decision, arguing that the direct urine test for r-EPO was reliable and internationally accepted, despite LAD lacking specific ISO accreditation for r-EPO testing. The CAS panel ruled that while accreditation was not mandatory, the burden shifted to the federation to prove the laboratory followed scientific standards. The panel found no substantial flaws in the testing process and dismissed MAR’s procedural objections, including claims of improper notification and denied representation during sample analysis. B. had also set a world record in the 3000-meter steeplechase after the initial doping control, and a subsequent urine sample tested positive for r-EPO, further corroborating the findings. The IAAF sought a two-year suspension for B., with credit for time already served under provisional suspension.
The CAS panel upheld the IAAF’s appeal, concluding that B. committed a doping violation and imposing the requested suspension. The decision emphasized the reliability of the r-EPO testing method and the importance of maintaining anti-doping standards in athletics. The ruling reinforced the principle that laboratories can implement new testing methods without specific accreditation, provided they adhere to scientific best practices. The panel also addressed procedural claims, such as MAR’s exclusion from observing the testing, but found no evidence to undermine the test's reliability, especially since B.'s representative observed the process without objection. The suspension was set for two years, with eligibility to resume on August 28, 2004, accounting for the provisional suspension period.
The case highlights the strict liability nature of doping offenses under IAAF rules and the balance between advancing anti-doping measures and protecting athletes' rights. It underscores the importance of validated testing methods and the role of accredited laboratories in ensuring fair competition. The decision reaffirmed the CAS's commitment to upholding anti-doping regulations while addressing procedural and scientific challenges raised by athletes and federations. The ruling serves as a precedent for future cases involving new testing methodologies and the interpretation of accreditation standards in anti-doping proceedings.