Frankie Sheahan verdict: Johnny Watterson traces the chain of events that led from Toulouse in April to yesterday's ruling

After Frankie Sheahan was tested following Munster's European Cup semi-final against Toulouse in Stade des Sept-Deniers on April 26th, his urine sample was sent to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) accredited laboratory in Paris. It was there that his A sample was found to have a concentration of 1,644 nanograms per millilitre of non-sulphated salbutamol. That measure of the prohibited substance put him over the permitted limit of 1,000 and from that moment he became a potential drug offender.

As Sheahan had, prior to the start of the ERC competition, incorrectly filled in the form that states he is an asthmatic and a regular user of an inhaler, which contains the banned drug salbutamol, the normal procedures for a positive find kicked into place. He was informed by the IRFU of the result and was recalled from the Irish tour to the Southern Hemisphere. It was May 30th.

At that stage, as with every athlete with an adverse finding, Sheahan was asked if he wished his B sample to be tested. He agreed, and it registered 1,764 nanograms, again over the 1,000-nanogram limit.

But under the instruction of Professor Duncan Finch - a pharmacologist who was employed by the ERC as an expert in the area after recommendation by the IOC - residue (the urine that remained in the laboratory after the first tests were carried out) of the A sample was sent to a different IOC-accredited laboratory in Barcelona, which could discriminate between inhaled and ingested salbutamol.

According to Sheahan's solicitor, Paul Derham, the ERC agreed that they could remit the urine residue to the Barcelona lab in mid-June.

Derham now argues that those results determined that the salbutamol in the sample given by the Irish hooker was consistent with him inhaling the substance and that it showed he did not take it by tablet or any other method.

Finch, according to Derham, belieived it is a gross injustice to any athlete to be charged with a doping allegation without investigating whether it was inhaled.

Derham contends that Finch did investigate further, via the Barcelona laboratory on June 27th, and that he was satisfied and reported accordingly.

He also claims that IOC regulations state that if salbutamol is taken by inhalation and not by other methods, the level of 1,000 is not appropriate and that as recently as June 3rd, 2003, Patrick Schamasch, the IOC's medical director, clarified the interpretation of levels above 1,000.

According to Derham, Schamasch states: "Salbutamol is allowed by inhalation. Levels above 1,000 cannot be ruled out, but such levels may be reached by inhalation."

Sheahan's team believed that if they could prove that the drug was legitimately inhaled, it would indicate that the player simply did what he always does to contain his asthma. They believed that if this proof were put before the ERC tribunal he would not be suspended and would not carry the stigma of being known as a player who took a performance-enhancing substance.

This idea foundered when, according to Derham, the tribunal, which sat at the ERC offices in St Stephen's Green, Dublin, decided that the Barcelona test should be discounted because it had questionable value and because "the integrity of the sample was compromised".

The integrity and professionalism of the tribunal panel is not at all in question, but Derham clearly disagrees with how it arrived at some of its conclusions.

Derham argues that in accordance with the Heineken Cup rules of 2002/2003 and the IOC rules pertaining to the competition, there are no levels set for the use of salbutamol by way of an inhaler.

His strongest criticism is that the cornerstone of Sheahan's defence was taken out of the equation when the Barcelona evidence was discounted.

He says the tribunal made no reference to how any of the other samples were dealt with but only that the Barcelona sample was "compromised".

He says the tribunal made a number of comments about Finch's findings but did not hear any evidence about how the samples were transferred or under what conditions they were transported.

He also says that no issues arose from any source about the issue of the sample. He says that if those issues had arisen he would have pointed out, as he will at the appeal, that the sample was the property of the ERC and that it is not within the player's compass to prove the integrity of the sample.

At the appeal, he will argue that as soon as the team from the International Drug Testing Management (IDTM) company took Sheahan's urine away after the match, it was no longer the player's property but the property of the ERC.

He will also raise the issue of the integrity of the Barcelona sample and the chain of command of the sample after it left the Paris laboratory and whose responsibility it was to ensure the management of it was secure.

"Absolutely disgusted," said Derham. "It has thrown the duty of care on the player. It's not his sample. It's the ERC's sample. They raised no issue in the course of the tribunal about it at all."

Derham does not know when the appeal will be heard. Again, he knows that it will take place in Dublin, in the ERC offices in Huguenot House, and that the new tribunal will be composed of three individuals.

The appeal has to be based on specific points of evidence or procedure and not simply express his and Sheahan's disappointment with the result.

The procedure of listing the issues they wish to question and highlighting the aspects of the case they believe greater consideration should have been given to will take a few days and they are hoping to lodge the appeal by the end of next week.

"We are very anxious to get it heard quickly so that Frankie Sheahan can be selected for the World Cup. But as yet we don't know when we can get a date," said Derham.