CAS 2002/A/400 M. / International Ski Federation (FIS)
Related cases:
- CAS 2002_A_374 Johann Muehlegg vs IOC
January 24, 2003 - IOC 2002 IOC vs Johann Muehlegg
February 24, 2002
- Cross Country Skiing
- Doping
- Deliberate use of prohibited substance
- Applicable sanction
1. The substance Darbepoetin alfa is an analogue-mimetic to EPO, which is a Prohibited Substance under the FIS Medical Guide. Darbepoetin is an artificial substance, which is never produced naturally by the human body and is different than EPO. Darbepoetin is easily detected using testing methods similar to those used to detect exogenous EPO.
2. In the absence of any explanation by the athlete of the presence of the Prohibited Substance in his body, there is no alternative, given the nature of Darbepoetin and its very effective performance enhancing effect, but to conclude that there is no other explanation than deliberate use.
3. In the absence of a personal appearance by the athlete (and a corresponding explanation of how the Prohibited Substance might have found its way into his body in a situation where there could only be exogenous administration of the Prohibited Substance) there is simply no reason whatsoever for CAS to consider reducing the disciplinary sanction imposed.
The Spanish Athlete Johann Muehlegg competed in the men’s cross-country ski event at the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympic Winter Games.
On 3 June 2002 the International Ski Federation (FIS) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after his sample, provided in February 2002 at the Olympic Winter Games, tested positive for Darbepoetin.
Hereafter the Athlete appealed the FIS decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete argued that the imposed automatic fixed suspension cannot be justified and asserted that there a grounds for a reduced sanction.
The CAS Panel rules that the Athlete committed a doping infraction and that he shall be sanctioned for a period of two years. The Panel deems that the Athlete has not provided any acceptable reason for to reduce his sanction.
Furthermore the Athlete failed to appear before the Panel. The Panel notes that it is difficult to imagine how a reduction of a sanction could ever be warranted without an opportunity to assess the credibility of the Athlete and the explanations, which he might have. He most certainly did not express remorse for his actions.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 January 2003:
1.) The appeal filed by M. on 12 July 2002 is dismissed.
2.) The decision of the FIS Council of 3 June 2002 is upheld.
3.) (…).
