Modahl vows to 'fight on' to the Lords

The legal defeat came after a six-year campaign but today the former Commonwealth 800-metre gold medal winner pledged to fight on and take her case to the House of Lords. Standing with husband and coach Vicente on the court steps, Modahl said: "This case has meant everything for us. We are going to fight on, absolutely fight on. We are in the process of selling our house to pay the costs.

"I disagree strongly with the verdict and the judge. I feel that after six and a half years of a very difficult fight he has come to the wrong decision. In my opinion the judge has neither shown compassion or justice in this case. If it takes another six and a half years we will fight on."

She had claimed she was treated unfairly by the British Athletics Federation (BAF) and accused them of bias. However the judge decided today she was treated fairly.

She was banned from international sport six years ago when a urine sample showed abnormally high levels of testosterone. It meant the runner was unable to defend her 800-metres title at the 1994 Commonwealth Games.

However a year later she was cleared on appeal and the ban was lifted. It emerged that the astonishingly high levels of testosterone found in the urine sample taken at the San Antonio stadium in Lisbon could have been because the sample had been left in the sun before the tests were carried out.

Modahl had claimed £480,000 spent on legal and medical advice, plus a similar figure in punitive damages over the way the case was handled by the BAF, now in administration and superseded by UK Athletics. She said today: "Despite proving my innocence I have never received even an apology. Trying to get a result in court has proved extremely difficult. It is crucial to remember I was innocent. Today the bullies have won. The judge has said it is okay to be a bully."

Her husband added: "The best years of her life have been taken from her. She was at the peak of her career when banned and is now just a shadow of what she was."

Modahl's solicitor-advocate, Anthony Julius, had told the court that the case was about injustice and the loss of livelihood. "She makes a legal case which is also a moral case. It's a case about bias and it's therefore a case about the proper administration of justice," he said.

The BAF argued that the doping charge was fairly dealt with and that there was "no substance" to the bias allegation. Dismissing her case, Mr Justice Douglas Brown said: "The question I have to ask myself is, 'has Ms Modahl had a fair deal of the kind she bargained for?' My conclusion is that she has had a fair deal."