The case involves Lei Cao, a professional weightlifter who won a gold medal at the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. In 2016, her stored doping control sample from the 2008 Games was re-analyzed by the WADA-accredited laboratory in Lausanne, revealing the presence of Growth Hormone Releasing Peptide (GHRP-2) and its metabolites, which are prohibited substances. The initial analysis in 2008 had not detected these substances due to technological limitations, but advancements in analytical methods allowed their identification during the re-analysis. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) initiated disciplinary proceedings, notifying Cao of the adverse analytical finding (AAF). She contested the findings but did not attend the hearings, submitting a written defense instead. The re-analysis process followed the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL), and Cao was given opportunities to attend the B sample analyses, though she was represented by a delegate from the Chinese Weightlifting Association. The IOC Disciplinary Commission upheld the AAF, leading Cao to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel, led by Sole Arbitrator Christoph Vedder, addressed several key legal issues. It confirmed that GHRP-2, though not explicitly named in the 2008 Prohibited List, was covered under the broader category of prohibited growth hormone-related substances. The panel emphasized that WADA-accredited laboratories are presumed to follow proper procedures unless proven otherwise, and Cao’s general allegations of procedural deviations were insufficient to rebut this presumption. The panel also ruled that the re-analysis of samples under Article 6.5 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules was valid, as its purpose was to detect previously undetectable substances using improved methods. The fact that the initial analysis did not reveal the prohibited substance did not invalidate the re-analysis results. Additionally, the eight-year limitation period for re-analysis was deemed lawful, as it aligned with the statute of limitations under the WADA Code and allowed sufficient time for scientific advancements.
Cao argued that GHRP-2 was not explicitly prohibited in 2008, that inconsistencies between laboratory results should not disadvantage her, and that re-analysis after eight years violated legal principles. She also claimed the WADA Code did not permit such re-analysis. The IOC countered that GHRP-2 was covered under the 2008 Prohibited List and that no procedural irregularities had occurred. The CAS dismissed Cao’s appeal, upholding the IOC’s decision to disqualify her from the 2008 Olympics, revoke her medal, and order its return. The ruling emphasized the importance of re-testing stored samples to ensure fair competition and the evolving nature of anti-doping science.
The case underscores the legal and procedural steps in anti-doping disputes, focusing on the interpretation of the Prohibited List and the fairness of re-testing samples years after the event. The CAS confirmed that the presence of a prohibited substance, even if initially undetected, constitutes a violation, and that athletes must comply with established rules and procedures. The decision highlights the balance between technological advancements in anti-doping efforts and the rights of athletes to a fair defense. Ultimately, the CAS upheld the sanctions, reinforcing the integrity of anti-doping regulations in sports.