"Lizzy Banks appeals passionately for change in the handling of contamination anti-doping cases, asserting that only through struggle can progress be made, following a two-year-long battle to clear her name"
Lizzy Banks, a former British cyclist who once competed for EF Education, made headlines after her two-year battle to clear her name following a positive test for a prohibited substance. Despite evidence suggesting contamination from an asthma medication tablet, Banks was ultimately banned for two years by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The controversy surrounding Banks' case has sparked debate and calls for reform in the world of anti-doping. Under current rules, athletes found with prohibited substances are presumed responsible unless they can prove unintentional contamination, a high evidentiary standard. Banks convinced UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) that her positive test likely came from a contaminated asthma tablet, supported by hair tests showing no internal use. However, WADA appealed the decision, and the CAS ruled that Banks failed to prove the source of the contamination.
Banks' case underscores the difficulty for athletes to successfully argue contamination. Scientific evidence like hair tests can be discounted, and strict liability means even inadvertent ingestion can lead to bans. Banks has called on UKAD, British Cycling, and international anti-doping bodies to push for new rules that better accommodate contamination scenarios and reduce wrongful suspensions.
The insistence for change is not new. Other cases reinforce this stance of strict liability. For example, the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) supports strict scrutiny of contamination claims, stating that scientifically substantiated contamination defenses at high levels of prohibited substances have never succeeded. Similarly, a recent World Athletics case involving unsubstantiated contamination claims led to a four-year ban, affirming the strict approach.
The anti-doping process normally involves sample collection, analysis, and results management overseen by organizations like USADA or national agencies. These agencies communicate with athletes about infringements and manage adjudication, aiming for fairness and integrity but within strict liability rules—meaning athletes must "prove" contamination, not just "claim" it.
Banks' emotional plea emphasizes that unless athletes and stakeholders actively demand change, current practices with their harsh outcomes for contamination cases will persist. The WADA spokesperson emphasized the importance of the principle of strict liability to uphold fairness in sport. However, Banks argues that anti-doping agencies and sporting bodies should work to change how contamination cases are handled to be more athlete-fair.
In July 2023, Banks tested positive for traces of the diuretic Chlortalidone. WADA appealed her case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and eventually won. Banks served a back-dated two-year suspension, which ended on 22 June 2025. In response, Banks wrote a 13,000-word update on her situation, detailing her ordeal and the way WADA delayed the process. She continues to call for change in the way contamination cases are judged by anti-doping authorities.
