Revised or New Test Procedures: What CAS Requires / Richard H. McLaren. – (International Sports Law Journal (2006) 3/4 : p. 36-46)
0.) Introduction
1.) Nandrolone
1a.) The Early CAS Jurisprudence
1a-i.) The Exercise Induced Challenge
1a-ii.) Calculation Challenges
1b.) Ingestion Without Intention Challenges
1b-i.) Contaminated Supplements
1b-ii.) Other Claims of Ingestion
1b-iii.) Unexplained Challenges
1c.) The Challenge of Changing Scientific Knowledge
1d.) Summary
2.) Erythropoietin
2a.) The Original Direct Urine Test
2b.) The Refinement of the BAP Test Interpretation Criteria
2c.) The Elimination of the BAP Criterion
2d.) The Most Recent Version of the EPO Test Procedure
2e.) The Active and Effort Urine Refinement to the Test Procedure
2f.) The Test for Darbepotien (Aranesp)
3.) Blood Transfusion: A New Test Procedure
4.) Conclusion
Revisions to the testing procedures for nandrolone and erythropoietin, - two prohibited substances - as well as the introduction of a new testing procedure for blood doping by transfusion, illustrate the challenges to the legal mettle of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) brought about by greater scientific understanding.
By virtue of studying testing developments we can explore the following theme: Can progress in testing continue in light of the CAS requirements? The same proposition and theme is also addressed by examining what was required to accept the introduction of flow cytometry as an analytical technique for detection of the prohibited method of homologous blood transfusion in the case of Tyler Hamilton.
In light of these developments, the challenge for CAS will be both in accommodating revisions and in permitting the introduction of new testing procedures to deal with new situations. In so doing, the
cost and process of legal acceptance for new procedures cannot continue to be as expensive. The accommodation of change and innovation must be realized while ensuring the protection of athlete’s rights.
