€100,000 could be cost of proving innocence

FRANKIE SHEAHAN is still counting the financial costs — possibly as much as €100,000 — of finally proving his innocence.

Sheahan had sought payment of his costs by the ERC. However, the Appeal Tribunal found that ERC had been absolutely right to bring the case, in light of the very high levels of salbutamol involved; that ERC had also properly defended the Judicial Tribunal's decision on appeal, and that the costs had been increased by the fact that the expert evidence submitted on appeal had not been put before the original Judicial Tribunal.

The Appeal Tribunal therefore declined to order ERC to pay any of Sheahan's costs but ERC did, however, note that this case has uncovered various fundamental uncertainties about the approach taken to salbutamol in the IOC List of Prohibited Substances. Scientists at the IOC medical commission and at the World Anti-Doping Association have taken a keen interest in this case, and have specifically asked for details of proceedings so that they can take them into account when finalising the List of Prohibited Substances for 2004.

Meanwhile, Sheahan's solicitor Paul Derham was delighted the case had been dealt with successfully.

Derham, a former Ireland A international and Munster player commented: "I never had any doubt regarding Frankie's innocence. It is heartening to note that the only real offence is that a form was not completed correctly. The Tribunal have accepted the evidence put before them and acknowledged that the main thrust of our argument from the start was factually correct.

"Frankie has paid a heavy price and that's not just a financial issue but at least now his nightmare is over. He can get on with his career and he won't have any problems with doing that because his peers were always convinced that he was dealt a bad hand."

Mr Derham also believes that the case may become a test vehicle for sport as a whole. Sheahan's sample was taken when the player was in a very dehydrated state, which distorted the reading of salbutamol, a factor that may have to be considered in the future.

"This is a test case for rugby, and probably sport," Derham said. "It has clarified a number of issues and highlighted the way levels and cut-off levels are dealt with. It confirms, in the case of salbutamol, that the level was only a trigger point rather than a cut-off point. And it will have fairly wide repercussions for the manner in which urine samples will be taken when dehydration is a factor. It has been acknowledged that the concentration levels of salbutamol was affected and distorted by dehydration."

While the solicitor couldn't put an exact figure on the amount of his time this case consumed, he has worked for the past three months solely on ensuring Sheahan is given the fair hearing many thought he was denied the first time around.

"It was terribly time-consuming, particularly in collating all the information we thought necessary to bring our case. We have been talking with medical experts as far away as Australia, Asia, America, Norway, Switzerland and Scotland. We got the widest number of people who knew what they were talking about in this case, three solid months of work."

Derham praised the discretion used by the Appeals Committee. "This was the best result we could have hoped for in the circumstances."