TAS 2008/A/1675 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) c. Ariel Maximiliano Richeze et Union Ciclista Republica Argentina (UCRA)
CAS 2008/A/1675 UCI vs Ariel Maximiliano Richeze & Union Ciclista Republica Argentina
Cycling
Doping (stanozolol)
Contamination of a food supplement
Significant Negligence
Beginning of suspension period
1. According to the constant jurisprudence, CAS has posed the principle that the athlete is responsible for the presence of doping product in his or her body. Every athletes has the advantage of the presumption of innocence until the presence is established of a prohibited substance in his or her body. If those conditions occur, the athlete’s intention for doping use and guilt are presumed.
2. Considering the duty to warn resulting from and in accordance with the WADA Code and the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, the cyclists are responsible for the ingredients of the food supplements they decide to use. A rider who has made only a few summary verifications before consuming a food supplement containing a prohibited substance with using constitutes a violation and entails a presumption of intention to use doping, has acted at fault or negligence. In this case, the rider’s negligence is significant, therefore under the UCI Anti-Doping Rules the conditions are not fulfilled for reduction to justify a 2 year suspension.
3. In accordance to the WADA Code and the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, with sense of justice, the starting point of the 2 year suspension must be fixed on the date the riders was suspended by his team despite the rider was reinstate hereafter by his team even though the disciplinary proceedings were not terminated with consequently the risk of a suspension. The fact that the rider has not been able, in spite of his temporary reinstatement, to develop his sports career as he could have done under normal circumstances must be taken into account.
In May 2008 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Argentinian cyclist after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
The Anti-Doping Commission of the Cycling Union of the Argentine Republic (UCRA) accepted the evidence that the Athlete non intentionally had used contaminated supplements, which didn’t mention on the label that it contained the prohibited substance stanozolol. On 12 August 2008 the UCRA Anti-Doping Commission ruled that the Athlete was not guilty or has been negligent to the reported violation and without disqualification of his results.
Hereafter in October 2008 the UCI appealed the UCRA decision of 12 August 2008 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Considering the evidence and statements the Panel concludes that the Athlete acted with significant negligence due to the fact that he failed to reseach the label of the supplements before using.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 April 2009 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 May 2008, including disqualification of his results obtained between 10 May and 23 October 2008.
