The case revolves around Kenyan boxer David Munyasia's appeal against the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) decision to exclude him from the 2004 Athens Olympics due to a doping violation. Munyasia tested positive for cathine, a prohibited substance, in a urine sample collected on August 6, 2004. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) reported the adverse finding, and the IOC's Disciplinary Commission confirmed the violation under Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules. The Commission recommended Munyasia's exclusion, which the IOC Executive Board upheld. Munyasia then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division, arguing that the cathine entered his system unintentionally through food, drinks, or antibiotics used to treat a boil. He also requested further analysis of the urine sample. A CAS panel, consisting of Prof. Richard McLaren, Mrs. Maidie Oliveau, and Prof. Jin Huang, held a hearing on August 15, 2004. Munyasia did not attend, but his team leader represented him, while the IOC was represented by its legal team. The panel confirmed its jurisdiction under the CAS Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games and Swiss law. The central legal issue was whether Munyasia violated the anti-doping rules, which impose strict liability on athletes for prohibited substances in their bodies, regardless of intent. The panel found that the cathine levels exceeded the permitted threshold and rejected Munyasia's request for deferral, noting that such matters fall under the authority of the International Federation. The panel upheld the IOC's decision, emphasizing the strict liability principle and the absence of procedural irregularities in the testing process. The ruling reinforced the IOC's authority to impose sanctions, including exclusion from the Games, for doping violations. It also highlighted the zero-tolerance approach to doping in Olympic sports and the limited grounds for appeal under strict liability rules. The document further outlines the broader consequences of doping violations, including the IOC's authority to declare athletes ineligible for current or future Games, impose sanctions like exclusion, and revoke accreditation. Medals and diplomas obtained due to violations must also be returned. The CAS panel rejected Munyasia's arguments about external factors, such as food or past infections, and emphasized that further analysis or appeals should be directed to the relevant sports federation. The decision upheld the withdrawal of Munyasia's accreditation and denied his application to overturn the IOC's ruling. The case underscores the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations and the athlete's accountability for prohibited substances in their system, affirming the IOC's authority to maintain the integrity of the Olympic Games.