Shelby Houlihan, a 28-year-old middle-distance runner from the United States, was accused of an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) after testing positive for nandrolone, specifically 19-norandrosterone (19-NA), in an out-of-competition urine sample collected on December 15, 2020. The sample analysis, conducted by a WADA-accredited laboratory, revealed the presence of 19-NA, a prohibited anabolic androgenic steroid. The Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) issued a provisional suspension against Houlihan on January 14, 2021, and her B-sample confirmed the initial findings. Houlihan claimed the positive result was due to consuming a burrito containing pork offal, arguing it was the only possible source of the 19-NA. She submitted expert evidence suggesting the metabolite ratios in her sample were consistent with boar offal consumption, but the AIU upheld the suspension and charged her with an ADRV under World Athletics' Anti-Doping Rules.
Houlihan filed multiple appeals with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking to lift her suspension in time for Olympic Trials, but her requests were dismissed. The case proceeded directly to CAS under appellate procedures, bypassing a prior hearing. The CAS panel addressed key legal issues, affirming that laboratories have the prerogative to interpret test results under WADA guidelines and that the burden of proving an ADRV was unintentional lies with the athlete. The panel also ruled that neither hair analysis nor polygraph test results alone are sufficient to rebut the presumption of intentional doping.
The panel examined whether the adverse analytical finding (AAF) was correctly reported, considering conflicting provisions in WADA's Technical Documents (TD2019NA and TD2021NA). Houlihan argued the laboratory should have classified the finding as atypical due to potential natural causes like boar offal consumption. However, the panel concluded the laboratory's procedures adhered to the relevant standards, and the AAF was properly reported. Expert testimony from Prof. Ayotte indicated the carbon isotopic signature of -23‰ in Houlihan’s sample was consistent with exogenous nandrolone use, not dietary sources. The panel found the likelihood of boar meat entering the U.S. pork supply chain extremely low, and even if consumed, the 19-NA levels in Houlihan’s sample were too high to be explained by pork ingestion.
Houlihan’s defense included witness statements from teammates and coaches supporting her integrity and clean athletic record. She testified she had never heard of nandrolone before the positive test and was morally opposed to doping. She claimed the burrito she ate the night before the test may have contained pig organs, but the panel found this explanation improbable. The panel concluded Houlihan failed to prove the ADRV was unintentional, upholding the four-year ineligibility period starting from her provisional suspension date. Her competitive results from December 2020 were disqualified.
The case underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and the challenges athletes face in contesting adverse findings. Despite Houlihan’s credibility and character witness testimony, the panel ruled the evidence pointed to intentional use of a prohibited substance. The decision highlights the complexities of anti-doping cases and the high burden of proof required to overturn a doping violation.