The case revolves around German athlete Dieter Baumann, who was nominated by the German National Olympic Committee (NOC) to compete in the XXVII Olympic Games in Sydney but faced a two-year ban from the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) for a doping offense involving nandrolone metabolites. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) subsequently revoked his accreditation. Baumann contested both the IAAF’s ban and the IOC’s decision, leading to a hearing before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division on September 21, 2000. The dispute originated from doping tests in late 1999 that showed elevated nandrolone levels, with Baumann alleging possible sabotage through contaminated toothpaste. Although German authorities dropped the investigation due to insufficient evidence, the DLV’s Legal Committee initially suspended Baumann but later cleared him in July 2000. Despite this, the IAAF imposed a ban, which Baumann temporarily blocked via a German court order. The IAAF proceeded with the ban, prompting the IOC to revoke his accreditation.
The CAS panel addressed jurisdictional challenges from the IAAF, which argued its arbitration decision was final. The panel rejected this, asserting jurisdiction under the Olympic Charter and CAS rules, emphasizing the dispute centered on the IOC’s accreditation withdrawal, not the IAAF’s doping ruling. The panel dismissed the res judicata defense, noting the parties and issues differed from prior proceedings. It affirmed CAS’s authority to review the case independently, ensuring procedural fairness. The panel also examined procedural claims by Baumann, who argued the IAAF failed to follow its own rules, provided inadequate notice, and denied due process. The IAAF countered that Baumann had sufficient opportunity to participate, including calling witnesses and cross-examining evidence. The panel found no merit in Baumann’s claims, noting he received documents in advance and could have used modern communication methods if needed.
On substantive issues, Baumann’s defense relied on contaminated toothpaste and lack of intent, but the panel upheld the strict liability rule, holding athletes responsible for banned substances regardless of intent. The panel acknowledged Baumann’s sincere testimony but ruled it insufficient to override scientific evidence. It also dismissed his technical arguments, such as the unreliability of hair analysis and polygraph tests, concluding the IAAF’s decision was procedurally sound and factually supported. The CAS panel ultimately upheld the IOC’s revocation of Baumann’s accreditation, dismissing his application and reinforcing the validity of the IAAF’s doping sanctions. The case underscored the tension between national and international sports bodies in doping disputes and highlighted CAS’s role in ensuring fair adjudication under the Olympic Charter. The panel’s decision affirmed the importance of procedural adherence and the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations.