TAS 97/175 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) / A.
- Cycling
- Doping (Bromantan and Clenbuterol)
- Authority UCI to agitate
- CAS competence
- Right to be heard
- Legal Status of the Prohibited List of substances
In July 1997 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported several anti-doping rule violations against the Uzbek Athlete A. after his samples tested positive for the prohibited substances bromantan and clenbuterol. The Athlete A. had provided these samples at 5 cycling competitions in France in 1997 and at one stage of the 1997 Tour de France.
On 28 August 1997 the Uzbekistan Cycling Federation decided to impose on the Athlete a 6 month period of ineligibility and a Sfr. 4000 fine. Hereafter in September 1997 the UCI appealed the Uzbek decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The UCI requested the CAS Panel to set aside the Uzbek decision and to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility including a Sfr. 4000 fine and disqualification of his results and points. Consequently, even if the UCI does not necessarily intervene in disciplinary proceedings, the UCI must be considered as a party, according of Article R47 CAS Code.
The Panel makes the following observations in this case:
1.) Even if the UCI doest not participate systematically in the proceedings provided in its Rule, the UCI nevertheless remains the initiator of the prosecution of the Athlete guilty of an anti-doping violation and therefore invites the National Federation to open proceedings. Consequently, even if it does not necessarily intervene in disciplinary proceedings, the UCI must be considered as a party, within the meaning of Article R47 of the Code.
2.) When an Athlete signs for his licence he is expressly bound to submit to CAS, as authority in the final instance, his arguments in anti-doping cases.
3.) The party considering itself a victim of a violation of its right to be heard or of any other procedural fault must invoke this at once in the arbitral proceedings. Failing to do this, the party is no longer entitled to complain in the appeal against the sentence.
4.) It is not because a particular product isn’t mentioned in the UCI list of prohibited substances at the moment of the facts that it possibly can not be qualified as a doping product.
Therefore on 5 April 1998 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides to uphold the UCI appeal, to reform the Uzbek decision of 28 August 1997 and to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility and a CHF 4000 fine on the Athlete including disqualifation of his results and poinst.
