The case involves Chunhong Liu, a weightlifter who won gold at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, and the International Olympic Committee (IOC). In 2016, Liu's stored doping samples from the 2008 Games were re-analyzed, revealing the presence of prohibited substances: Growth Hormone Releasing Peptide-2 (GHRP-2) and its metabolites, as well as sibutramine. These substances were not detected during the initial analysis in 2008 but were identified using advanced methods during the re-analysis. The IOC initiated disciplinary proceedings, and Liu contested the findings, arguing that the substances were not explicitly listed in the 2008 Prohibited List and questioning the reliability of the re-analysis process.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled that GHRP-2, though not explicitly named in the 2008 Prohibited List, fell under the broader category of prohibited growth hormone-related substances. The CAS emphasized that WADA-accredited laboratories are presumed to follow proper procedures unless proven otherwise, and Liu's general allegations of procedural deviations were insufficient to challenge the results. The re-analysis, conducted within the eight-year limit set by IOC Anti-Doping Rules, was deemed lawful, as it aligned with the goal of leveraging improved testing methods over time. The CAS upheld the IOC's decision, confirming the anti-doping violation and disqualifying Liu's 2008 results.
The case underscores the principle that substances can be prohibited under general categories even if not individually listed, and reaffirms the validity of re-testing samples within the stipulated timeframe to ensure fair competition. The ruling also highlights the importance of scientific advancements in detecting previously undetectable doping substances.
Liu further argued that the retroactive application of the Prohibited List was unjust and raised concerns about inconsistencies between the 2008 and 2016 test results, the fairness of reanalyzing samples after nearly eight years, and the absence of provisions for such reanalysis in the 2008 WADA Code. The IOC countered by asserting that GHRP-2 was indeed prohibited in 2008 under the broader category of growth hormone-releasing factors, as clarified in the 2015 Prohibited List's explanatory notes. They maintained that the 2016 reanalysis accurately detected substances that were present but undetectable in 2008. Regarding sibutramine, the IOC confirmed it was explicitly prohibited in 2008.
The CAS proceedings involved written submissions from both parties, with no hearing held. Liu's legal team argued that the retroactive application of the Prohibited List was unjust, while the IOC defended its position by referencing expert communications confirming that GHRP-2 was covered under the 2008 List. The Sole Arbitrator concluded that the presence of these substances constituted an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 IOC ADR, justifying the disqualification of Liu's results from the 2008 Olympics. The arbitrator found no procedural or substantive grounds to overturn the IOC's decision.
The case highlights the complexities of anti-doping regulations, particularly regarding the classification of substances and the validity of retrospective testing. The final decision by the CAS upheld the IOC's ruling, reinforcing the consequences imposed on Liu. The case underscores the challenges athletes face in contesting doping violations, especially when relying on technical or procedural arguments. The decision reaffirms the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and upholds the integrity of the doping control process. The CAS ultimately confirmed the IOC's decision, dismissing all other motions or requests for relief.