CAS 2001/A/343 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) / H.
- Cycling
- Doping (rhEPO)
- Reliability of the analysis method
- Objective criteria to identify rhEPO
- Timeliness of the appeal
1. There is no UCI rule or regulation whereby the existence of rhEPO can be concluded only from a combined blood and urine test. The UCI’s rules do not contain any provision whereby a sample can be considered positive only if the rhEPO exceeds a certain threshold. Evidence of even only minimal quantities of rEPO is sufficient for it to constitute a violation of the UCI’s Antidoping Regulations. The UCI has laid down that exogenously administered rhEPO must be established using the direct test method (urine test without a blood test).
2. A sample cannot be declared positive or negative depending on the subjective opinion and/or experience of the laboratory staff according to the maxim "I know it when I see it". Rather it is imperative that the laboratory applies reliable and verifiable criteria, making it possible for third parties to objectively understand the conclusions reached.
3. It is not acceptable for the B sample to be subjected to different standards from the A sample. The whole purpose of the B sample is to confirm the A sample. However, such confirmation only makes sense if the same test method has been applied to both samples and if the test results are evaluated pursuant to the same principles. If the test results of the B sample have not been measured using the same standards as in the A sample, the A sample is not confirmed, rather a new analysis has been carried out pursuant to a different method of evaluation.
In May 2001 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Danish Athlete H after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances recombinant erythropoietin (rhEPO).
However on 9 August 2001 the Doping Tribunal of the National Olympic Committee and Sports Confedertion of Denmark acquitted the Athlete.
Hereafter in August 2001 the UCI appealed the Danish decision of 9 August 2001 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The UCI requested the Panel to set aside the Danish decision and to sanction the Athlete for the anti-doping violation.
The Athlete H. argued that the UCI appeal with CAS was filed out of time, and the test results do not constitute unequivocal evidence of rhEPO in his sample.
In this case one of the Athlete’s two B samples showed a level of 78.6% and thus lay below the 80% threshold. Nevertheless the laboratory found the Athlete's sample to be positive. The CAS Panel concludes that the result is that the B sample did not confirm the A sample because one of the B samples did not attain the level of 80% laid down by the laboratory itself for the A sample. The Panel does not consider the conditions to be met for a penalty to be imposed because of a contravention of the UCI's Antidoping Regulations.
Therefore on 28 January 2002 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides that:
1.) The appeal is dismissed.
2.) The decision of the Doping Tribunal of the National Olympic Committee and Sports Confederation in Denmark of 9 August 2001 (case 6/2001) is upheld.
3.) (…)
