The British Olympic Association assisted with, and publicly funded, an appeal against the loss of his medal. In October 2002 his medal appeal was heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne. The basis of the appeal was that the form of methamphetamine in the USA Vicks levMethamphetamine is an inactive isomer of methamphetamine. The CAS and the IOC agreed that he had not intentionally ingested the substance. Under the strict liability doctrine, athletes are liable if they inadvertently take any form of potentially performance-enhancing substance, and a large number of athletes have lost medals as a result. Cold cures and other over-the-counter medicines are the most common sources of trace levels of amphetamines and other stimulants. His appeal rested on whether levAmphetamine was performance-enhancing, Vicks and other expert witnesses explained that it was a decongestant, and had negligible stimulant properties. Dr Don Catlin maintained that the banned list did not specify isomers so all forms were on the banned list and the strict liability doctrine applied. This was particularly controversial since 100 US athletes who won 19 medals tested positive for stimulants at his laboratory, and were cleared to continue competing, and Dr. Catlin was named as part of a 3-man committee that routinely allowed US Olympians such as Carl Lewis to continue competing despite failing drugs tests. The vast majority of athletes named in Wade Exum's papers tested positive for stimulants found in over-the-counter cold medicines. Most were cleared after explaining that they had taken the substances inadvertently.