Bold claim: a tennis star who repeatedly tested positive for banned drugs now demands $20 million in damages from the WTA Tour, arguing the system failed her. But here’s where it gets controversial: the case hinges on whether contaminated meat can explain the drug presence and whether the sport’s anti-doping regime acted properly.
Tara Moore, once Britain’s top doubles player, is serving a four-year ban after positive tests for two anabolic steroids. She says the positives came from contaminated meat and filed a complaint against the WTA in a New York federal district court this month, asserting that the organization had concrete knowledge of contaminated meat dangers in Bogotá, Colombia, yet chose to stay silent and did not warn athletes.
The timeline: Moore was provisionally suspended in May 2022 after testing positive following a tournament in Colombia. She claimed the steroids in her sample resulted from eating beef or pork during her stay. An independent tribunal later found she bore no fault or negligence in December 2023. The International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA), which runs the sport’s anti-doping program, appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
CAS ruled in July that the ITIA’s appeal should be upheld, dismissed Moore’s counter-appeal, and imposed a four-year ban from the sport (minus time already served). If upheld, Moore would be ineligible to compete until the start of the 2028 season. The CAS statement noted that the panel majority found the evidence did not demonstrate that nandrolone came from contaminated meat and that the anti-doping rule violation was not proven non-intentional. The cross-appeal by Moore was deemed inadmissible.
Following CAS’ ruling, Moore posted that the anti-doping system is broken and called the process subjective. She reflected on the personal toll: more than three years of upheaval, with her family and friends trying to piece her life back together.
Moore, a British national who lives in Indiana, has consistently denied knowingly using a banned substance. In her lawsuit, she argues that CAS effectively presumes guilt and places an almost insurmountable burden on the accused to prove innocence, a standard she says clashes with New York and U.S. civil-law principles. She also contends that her appeal was dismissed because the arbitrator adopted CAS’ framework.
In response, a WTA spokesperson emphasized that arbitration was conducted by a neutral arbitrator and that there is no basis to overturn the award; they declined further comment while the matter proceeds. CAS and ITIA similarly declined to comment at this time.
When the four-year sanction was handed down in July, ITIA chief executive Karen Moorhouse stated that appealing a first-instance decision is not taken lightly and that the scientific advice at issue indicated the high nandrolone level could not be adequately explained by contamination. The ruling echoed that stance, though it left room for questions from players and their teams, which ITIA pledged to address after a thorough review.
Even as this legal drama unfolds, meat contamination remains a concern for players. In Acapulco, this week’s Mexican Open will not serve meat in the players’ restaurant to ease doping-related worries.
Feb 23, 2026
