The case revolves around Mihaela Melinte, a world-record-holding hammer thrower, who was provisionally suspended by the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) after testing positive for nandrolone metabolites during a competition in Milan on June 7, 2000. The suspension was imposed on September 25, 2000, following a review of her "A" sample, which showed elevated levels of the banned substance. Melinte was unaware of the positive test until September 27, when she was abruptly removed from the field just before her qualifying round at the Sydney Olympics. She filed an urgent appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division on September 28, seeking reinstatement for the finals scheduled for the next day.
The CAS panel, convened under the ad hoc Rules for the Sydney Olympics, held a late-night hearing to address the urgency of the matter. The IAAF argued that CAS lacked jurisdiction, but the panel rejected this, citing the Olympic Charter and precedent from prior cases. It confirmed that international federations, by participating in the Olympics, implicitly accept CAS jurisdiction. The panel also dismissed the argument that the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) inaction on revoking Melinte’s accreditation affected jurisdiction, as her removal from competition constituted a dispute arising during the Games.
Melinte contended that the IAAF violated its own rules by not allowing her to present an explanation before imposing the suspension. However, the panel noted that IAAF Rule 59 permits provisional suspension after a positive "A" test without a prior hearing. While the panel criticized the IAAF for the abrupt manner in which Melinte was informed, it found no procedural violation justifying her reinstatement. The panel also considered Melinte’s explanations for the positive test but found them insufficient to overturn the suspension in the expedited hearing context.
The panel denied Melinte’s application for interim relief, upholding the provisional suspension. The decision emphasized the principle of strict liability in doping cases, where athletes are responsible for prohibited substances in their bodies regardless of intent. The ruling reinforced CAS's jurisdiction over Olympic-related disputes and the authority of international federations to enforce anti-doping measures. The case highlights the challenges athletes face in contesting doping suspensions during high-profile events, where procedural fairness must be balanced against the need for swift resolution.
The athlete argued she was not given a reasonable opportunity to present her explanation, but the panel noted she had the chance during the hearing, and her arguments were not compelling enough for relief. The panel addressed other points, including the laboratory's use of a lower reporting threshold for nandrolone, though the actual detected level was much higher. The delay in reporting the results and the laboratory's accreditation status were also considered, but the panel found no evidence these issues invalidated the test. Claims about the laboratory failing to report both primary metabolites were dismissed, as the presence of one metabolite is sufficient to establish doping. The possibility of pregnancy or birth control pills causing the positive result was ruled out after inquiries by the IAAF. While Melinte had a clean testing record before and after the positive test, the panel noted this could still align with the use of nandrolone precursors. Both parties acknowledged this expedited hearing was not the final resolution, and the athlete is entitled to further hearings under IAAF rules. The panel emphasized its decision was based on the emergency relief request and did not conclusively resolve the doping allegations. The application was ultimately dismissed.