Skiing: Baxter's defence rests on slippery slope

The Baxter saga: Medallist's three-pronged challenge to drug test faces mountainous difficulties on every front

Alain Baxter's defence against charges of drug-taking at the Winter Olympics will centre on three key areas of potential doubt. It is likely that the results of the B sample of Baxter's test will confirm the positive presence of methamphetamine which was identified in the A sample taken after the British skier's slalom bronze medal, the nation's first ever Alpine medal, in Salt Lake City.

Baxter's legal team, which will include Sara Friend, the British Olympic Association's lawyer, will be wanting to examine very closely the procedures used in the analysis and the management of the original post-competition samples, which were conducted by a fully accredited International Olympic Committee laboratory in Los Angeles. The laboratory is regarded as one of the best testing centres in sport.

Detailed procedural methods, laid down by the IOC, have to be followed to the letter to reassure athletes that the testing process is entirely fair. In Salt Lake, a Belarus speedskater who had traces of nandrolone in his body 300 times over the IOC limit avoided sanction because a seal on the A sample was accidentally broken in transit. Though the athlete officially admitted his guilt by not attending a retest, it was an embarrassing lapse for the US authorities. Technical irregularities were at the heart of Diane Modahl's ultimately successful campaign to clear her name after she tested positive for drugs during a minor competition in Portugal.

The third, and most probable, line of defence for the Scotsman will be the simple admission of an innocent mistake. Linford Christie once argued successfully that traces of an illegal product found in his system were due to drinking ginseng tea. It is known that Baxter was suffering from a cold in Salt Lake and that, in contrast to Europe, nasal sprays sold over the counter in America contain methamphetamine. The IOC's commission of inquiry will be asked to believe that Baxter took the spray, presuming it was exactly the same as the British product and therefore unharmful.

"Those are the only plausible defences," says Barrie Houlihan, professor of sports policy at Loughborough University and author of Dying to Win, the definitive history of drug-taking in sport. "It's either they got the science wrong. In other words, the lab messed up. Or it's possible that the management of the sample was flawed – Alain wasn't supervised properly, the bottles were mishandled or the right documents weren't signed, something like that – which has happened in the past. Or he could just say, as Christie did, that he did not know what he was taking. The problem with that is the IOC are becoming increasingly sceptical about that form of defence.

"Baxter is 28, he is not a young kid and athletes are immersed in a culture of science now. They know the basic rule which is, 'If in doubt, don't take it'. The recent cases of nandrolone found in dietary supplements are a recent example. Don't trust what's on the label. So I don't know how much credibility that argument will have with the IOC."

Neither Mark Richardson nor Dougie Walker, who both tested positive for traces of nandrolone, escaped a ban, though Richardson later had his initial suspension reduced. Walker, Baxter's fellow Scot, has found the cost of trying to clear his name too prohibitive. Baxter's father, Iain, a ski instructor in Aviemore, suggested that someone might have slipped his son something "without him knowing", but the IOC would need very clear proof before accepting that line of defence.

However inadvertently, Baxter now stands squarely in the dock, subject to the often perverse justice administered by the IOC and rendered stateless by the accusations levelled against him. Those who know him well are convinced of his innocence. Britain does not have the reputation of some Eastern European countries for producing serial drug-takers, but nationality will rightly be dismissed as irrelevant when Baxter's case is heard next week. Baxter's supporters point out the fact that the use of amphetamines could not possibly enhance performance in a discipline as precise and as specialised as slalom skiing.

Amphetamines were, for a long time, the drug of choice for cyclists and long-distance skiers, a ready means of keeping the body alert and disguising the onset of fatigue. Methamphetamine was one of a number of drugs found inside Tommy Simpson, the world champion cyclist, when he died from a combination of heat exhaustion and cardiac failure on Mont Ventoux in 1967. The drug was particularly popular among American footballers in the 1970s.

"They used it because it increased their aggression on the field," explains Houlihan. "But as the body's tolerance level grew, so they were having to take larger and larger doses of amphetamines to produce the same results, and it can be addictive. That was producing some cases of utterly manic behaviour. There is anecdotal evidence that one of the psychological effects of amphetamines is to produce a greater sense of confidence and a lower level of caution. But that would be of more benefit to a downhill skier than a slalom skier, who is having to balance speed and risk very quickly."

The signs from Lausanne are not encouraging. At best, it seems, Baxter will be stripped of his bronze medal; at worst, he could be banned for life. If his defence fails, the implications for British skiing will be incalculable. And at just the moment that the sport was anticipating an increase in its funding and looking to establish a coherent junior programme. More than Baxter's own future lies in the balance this week.