CAS 98/192 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) / S., Danmarks Cykle Union (DCU) and Danmarks Idraets-Forbund (DIF)
- Cycling
- Doping (testosterone)
- Conflict between the rules of an International Federation and those of a National Olympic Committee
1. Rule 30 of the Olympic Charter assigns the international federations the responsibility to “establish and enforce, in accordance with the Olympic spirit, the rules concerning the practice of their respective sports and to ensure their application”. The mission of the NOC's, on the other hand, is to “fight against the use of substances and procedures prohibited by the IOC or the IFs”. This mission is focused upon political actions vis-à-vis the competent authorities of their respective countries.
2. The international federations enjoy the principal competence with regard to the fight against doping. The natural consequence of this is that their rules prevail over those which an NOC or national sports authority (for example an NF) might have enacted.
3. Pursuant to the UCI regulations, in case of endogenous steroids, a sample is deemed positive if the urine T/E ratio is above 6, unless this ratio is attributable to a physiological or pathological condition.
In August 1997 the Danish national cycling federation (DCU) - initiated by the International Cycling Union (UCI) - has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete S. after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.
On 18 January 1998 the Doping Tribunal of the Danish NOC decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete under the Danish Rules starting on 13 December 1997.
The Athlete appealed this decision and on 4 May 1998. The Danish Commission for Appeals and Arbitration of the Danish NOC decided to uphold the imposed 2 year sanction.
After deliberations between the UCI. the DCU and the Danish NOC about the imposed sanction and respecting the UCI Rules the UCI filed an appeal in February 1998 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Pending the appeal of the Athlete S. with the Danish Commission for Appeals and Arbitration the UCI’s appeal with CAS was postponed and resumed after the Danish Commission for Appeals and Arbitration issued its decision on 4 May 1998.
The UCI argued that the imposed sanction of 2 years under the Danish Rules on the Athlete exceeds the maximum sanction prescribed in the UCI Rules and it requested the CAS Panel to impose an appropriate sanction under the UCI Rules. Also UCI disputed the fact that no disqualification from the Tour of Denmark or a fine was imposed on the Athlete.
The Panel concludes that the jurisdiction of the CAS is based on Art. 84 UCI. The Doping Tribunal of the Danish NOC acted as the “competent body” of the DCU with the knowledge and consent of the UCI. The DCU, in turn, exercised the original jurisdiction of the UCI as prescribed by the applicable provisions of the UCI Rules.
The UCI initiated the doping proceedings against the Athlete S. in accordance with UCI Rules, informed the DCU regarding applicable deadlines and requested to be kept informed of all measures taken by the DCU in the proceedings. Its good faith reliance upon the DCU's representations is evidenced in the exchange of information between the UCI and the DCU, on the one hand, and the DCU/Danish NOC and the Athlete S., on the other.
It is shown clearly in the UCI's timely filing of its appeal to the CAS in accordance with Art. 84 and its refusal to accept the jurisdiction of the Danish NOC with regard to the appeal by the Athlete S. to the Commission of Appeals of the Danish NOC.
The Panel dismissed the arguments filed by the Athlete and reduced the imposed sanction from 2 years to 9 months. The Panel has taken into consideration the fact that the UCI Rules prescribes a maximum suspension of one year for the first offence as opposed to the maximum suspension of two years prescribed in the Rules applied by the Danish NOC.
It cannot be overlooked, however, that the reduction in the sentence is also justified by the disadvantages suffered by the Athlete S. in formulating his defence as a result of the jurisdictional dissent between the UCI, the DCU and the Danish NOC.
Therefore on 21 October 1998 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:
1.) The 19 January 1998 Decision of the Doping Tribunal of the National Olympic Committee and Sports Confederation of Denmark (Danmarks Idreaets-Forbund) as modified by the Decision of the Commission of Appeals and Arbitration of 4 May 1998 shall be modified as follows:
(a) The term of the sentence shall be reduced from two years to nine months commencing on 12 December 1997. Accordingly, the term of suspension ends 11 August 1998.
(b) The Court of Arbitration for Sport imposes a fine on the Athlete S. in the amount of CHF 2’000.00 (two thousand Swiss Francs).
(...)
