TAS 2010/A/2203 Mickael Larpe c. Fédération Française de Cyclisme (FFC)
TAS 2010/A/2214 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) c. Mickael Larpe & FFC
CAS 2010/A/2203 Mickael Larpe vs Fédération Française de Cyclisme (FFC)
CAS 2010/A/2214 UCI vs Mickael Larpe & Fédération Française de Cyclisme (FFC)
Cycling
Doping (rhEPO - Darbepoietin)
Range of CAS power for investigation
"Substantial" nature of the assistance to investigators
Admission
Suspension period for substantial assistance
Amount of the fine
1. An arbitration panel is not empowered to go beyond the parties' pleadings (sentence ultra petita).
A party may appeal to the Federal Tribunal in the event that the arbitral tribunal has awarded to a party more or different from it had requested (ultra or extra petita) and those who it failed to award on the main point of the claim or counterclaim.
2. Even if the responses provided by the anti-doping authorities to the questions of the arbitral Panel doesn’t allow to rule unreservedly about the "substantial" nature of the assistance provided by the athlete to the investigators, this assistance can not be ignored and must therefore be taken into consideration in assessing the duration of the suspension granted to the athlete. Accordingly, the “substantial” nature of the assistance is at least reinforced by the athlete’s statements to the investigators, and that it at least should lead to the opening of investigations and indictments of third parties for the use of doping products.
3. An arbitration panel can not retain that an athlete has admitted voluntarily having committed an anti-doping rule violation solely on the basis of a statement made by this athlete that he would indeed have "voluntarily" having admitted "committed an anti-doping rule violation" and that this admission "constitutes the only reliable evidence of the violation at the time of the admission", without further evidence confirming the statement in this case.
4. Contrary to what is provided for in the case of No Fault or Negligence, No Significant Fault or Negligence or Admission, the period of ineligibility is not reducible in the case of "suspended sanction" but may only be imposed conditionally. Also, in the system of elimination or reduction of the period of ineligiblility under exceptional circumstances, the "suspended sanction" must be distinguished from the "reduction of period of ineligibility".
5. According to the CAS jurisprudence, the fixed fine in accordance with Article 326 paragraph 1 letter A of the ADR is based on the net annual income to which the rider is normally entitled for the whole year and not on the amount actually received.
In May 2010 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French cyclist Mickael Larpe after his samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Darbepoetin (dEPO).
On 25 June 2010 the National Disciplinary Commission of the French Cycling Federation (FFC) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete with 3 months as suspended sanction including costs and a fine to be determined by the UCI.
Hereafter in July and August 2010 both the Athlete and the UCI appealed the FFC decision of 25 June 2010 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The UCI requested the Panel to uphold the imposed sanction and to order the payment for costs, fees and a € 12.919,20 fine.
The Athlete requested to Panel for a more substantial reduction of the sanction and argued that he had provided substantial assistance to the authorities about the use and trafficking of doping.
Considering the Athlete’s substantial assistance the Panel finds that a more generous suspension must be granted with a revision of the suspended sanction and a reduced fine.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 March 2011 to impose on the Athlete a 2 year period of ineligibility with 6 months as suspended sanction and a € 6.460,- fine.
