Aivi Luik of the Matildas is fighting his doping ban despite not undergoing a doping test | Drugs in sport

Matildas veteran Aivi Luik withdrew from the Olympics in May after being suspended by the Italian Anti-Doping Agency for a violation related to a painkiller injection two years earlier, although Luik had not undergone a doping test.

On April 24, the agency Nado Italia wrote in an email to Luik: She was accused of a doping violation and was to be banned for three months.

“Of course, the whole world stood still for me,” said Luik.

The allegation dates back to 2022, when Luik's Serie A club Pomigliano sent her to a specialist for a back injury. On March 29 of that year, the doctor administered an approved painkiller injection containing a substance banned by the World Anti-Doping Code only “in competition,” which in football means when administered on the day of a match.

It is believed that her club then mistakenly applied to the Italian Anti-Doping Agency for an exemption which it believed would have allowed her to play again. Luik sat on the bench for one match after the injection on April 2 and did not play.

When the agency rejected the application form, Pomigliano unilaterally released Luik for the remaining three games of the season. Her contract then ended and she moved to her current club Häcken in Sweden.

Nado Italia is believed to have claimed that Luik would have tested positive had she been tested for a banned substance after the match in which she played as an unused substitute.

Luik pleaded before the Italian Anti-Doping Tribunal, but was unsuccessful. She is now considering appealing to the Swiss Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Her lawyer Alexis Schoeb said the logic behind the charges against Luik was unclear.

“We are having some difficulties following the Italian anti-doping authority,” said Schoeb.

“What happened to Aivi is that she may have had the substance [from the pain-killing injection] in her body because she naturally took the substance [as the rules permit]but without a positive test result, she should never have been prosecuted for this case.

“She was allowed to take this medication as prescribed and she was allowed to play even though the substance may still be in her system.”

The notification came shortly before the Matildas' Olympic squad for Paris 2024 was due to be announced. Luik, 39, made the difficult decision to withdraw her participation.

“I just knew that no matter how hard I tried, I wouldn't be able to do my best and give 100%, which is what is required of every single athlete on the team,” Luik said in an interview with The Sports Ambassador podcast published Wednesday.

“More than that, I was scared to think that this could affect the team because we had a really good chance at this tournament to do well and finally win a medal.

“I was just so scared of the thought of something like this maybe coming out during the Olympic tournament and what that would mean for the girls and the team in general… how it would take the focus off of them and probably negatively impact their performance.”

“I couldn’t do that, I had to call Tony [Gustavsson, the coach] and just drag my name out of the selection.”

Catherine Ordway is a sports lawyer and anti-doping expert who has advised several international organisations on integrity and policy development. She said she was not aware of any case similar to Luik's. This should set off alarm bells across all sports, including professional leagues such as the AFL and NRL.

“The whole scenario is quite strange,” said Ordway. “It does not fit the purpose of the World Anti-Doping Agency [Wada]the World Anti-Doping Code, which of course is designed to prevent performance enhancement in sport. This is simply not that scenario.

“Every day, athletes, particularly here in Australia in professional sport, are given a glucocortisoid steroid… to enable them to compete at the highest level possible.”

It is assumed that WADA is investigating the case.

WADA has previously challenged decisions by national anti-doping organizations when it considered that they were too lenient in dealing with doping violations. In the Liège case, the opposite is the case.

Ordway said WADA was well within its rights to challenge Luik's suspension because the precedent it set was “highly problematic.”

“The World Anti-Doping Agency is the protective mechanism, the umbrella organization that keeps an eye on everything and ensures that its rules are implemented and applied appropriately and proportionately in all cases worldwide,” said Ordway.

“She has the right to appeal. She can easily step in and resolve the matter immediately. And I hope she does.”

Luik has until the end of this week to decide whether to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport to clear her name or to accept the end of her career because of a doping violation.

“The first thought of every athlete is, of course, 'I'm going to fight this,'” she said. “I have no doubt about that … and then you hear more about how much it costs and what it requires.”

“Ultimately, I know that people who know me know that I would never intentionally cheat or violate the anti-doping rules… Is this one of those where I just accept it and live with the fact that there will always be people who disagree?

Schoeb said it was an important case for athletes' rights and their trust in the anti-doping system.

“In a case like Aivi Luik’s, it’s basically just about applying the rules,” he said.

Nado Italia did not respond to a request for comment.