In 2015 the International Cycling Union (UCI) decided for retesting the samples of the Slovenian cyclist Jure Kocjan. The Athlete’s samples were collected in March 2012 and the retesting was conducted in accordance with the new WADA Technical Document TD 2014EPO in order to reflect recent scientific developments in the detection of erythropoietin (EPO).
In January 2016 the UCI has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoetin (rhEPO). Also in November 2016 the UCI has reported an second anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for Tampering and / or Attempted Tampering because the UCI qualified the Athlete’s menace to publicly release the (secretly) recorded telephone conversation with a UCI staff member as a conduct contrary to the ADR.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered, the Athlete filed statements with objections in his defence in both cases, rejected an Acceptance of Consequences and waived the provision of substantial assistance. Without a hearing for the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal (UCI-ADT) an decision was rendered on the basis of the written submissions.
In his submissions the Athlete disputed the validity, admissibility and reliability of the evidence and claimed that departures occurred of the applicable Rules and Standards.
The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete failed to show on a balance of probability that there were any departures from the ISL. The Athlete has not provided one specific reference to a provision of the ISL or other applicable International Standard that might have been violated by the Laboratory. Despite the principle of iura novit curia resp. iura novit arbiter, the Athlete must fulfill some minimum conditions when presenting the facts of the case. This (low) threshold has not been met in the case at hand.
Not only did the Athlete fail to substantiate his factual allegation with respect to a possible departure of the ISL. He also did not explain how the individual breach of a provision of the ISL could have reasonably caused the AAF. Since the Athlete was unable to rebut the presumption, the Sole Arbitrator finds that the ADRV in the form of “Presence” (Article 21.1 ADR 2012) has been established in the first reported anti-doping violation.
In the matter of the Athlete’s second anti-doping violation the Sole Arbitrator holds that the Athlete had no legitimate grounds to record the telephone conversation. The Sole Arbitrator finds that if the Athlete secretly recorded the telephone conversation he committed a criminal offense according to the Swiss Criminal Code. The Athlete tried to profit from the (simulated) criminal offense by intimidating the UCI staff member and thereby influencing the Doping Control process. The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete has committed a second ADRV in the form of attempted tampering within the meaning of Article 2.5 ADR 2015.
Therefore the UCI-Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 28 June 2017 that:
1.) Mr. Jure Kocjan has committed a first Anti-Doping Rule Violation according to Article 21.1 ADR 2012 and a second Anti-Doping-Rule Violation according to Article 2.5 ADR 2015.
2.) Mr. Jure Kocjan is suspended for a period of ineligibility of 4 years commencing on 28 January 2016.
3.) The results obtained by Mr. Jure Kocjan from 8 March 2012 until and including 8 March 2014 are disqualified.
4.) Mr. Jure Kocjan is ordered to pay to the UCI a monetary fine (…).
5.) Mr. Jure Kocjan is ordered to pay to the UCI for costs (…).
6.) Mr. Jure Kocjan is ordered to pay a contribution (…) towards UCI’s legal costs in connection with these proceedings.
7.) All other and / or further reaching requests are dismissed.
8.) (…)
