TAS 2002/A/378 Filippo Simeoni vs. UCl and FCI
CAS 2002/A/378 S. / Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and Federazione Ciclista Italiana (FCI)
- Cycling
- Acknowledgement of doping
- Duration of the suspension/probation period
- Calculation of the period of inactivity of the rider
1. The UCI Antidoping Examination Regulations (AER) apply to all licence holders irrespective of whether they admitted having been doped on the occasion of a specific race.
2. The period of normal inactivity should be construed restrictively, and should only be applied if there are no races during the period that the rider would otherwise participate in.
3. According to UCI AER, a probation to a sanctioned cyclist may be granted by CAS. In the present case, the athlete, who admitted having used prohibited and doping substances, did contribute in a relevant way to the fight against doping, insofar as he broke the «wall of silence» and contributed with his testimony to the criminal indictment and sporting penalisation of other people.
The Appellant, Filippo Simeoni, is a professional road cyclist. He is an Italian citizen and holder of a licence issued by the FCI. In the context of an investigation conducted by the Italian criminal authorities on the use of doping substances in cycling, the Athlete was called to testify as a witness in July 1999. In the course of that investigation, he admitted having used prohibited and doping substances from November 1996 until July 1997, at a time when his medical support was provided by Dr. Ferrari.
As a consequence of his anti-doping violation the FCI decided on 6 December 2001 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. However the UCI Commission Antidopage decided to set aside the FCI decision and imposed on 10 April 2002 a fine of CHF 2'000.- and a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
In April 2002l the Athlete appealed the imposed sanction with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and made the following assertions:
a) By rendering its decision of 10 April 2002 «automatically», the UCI violated fundamental rights of defence of the Appellant, i.e. his right to a fair trial and to cross-examination, the principle of ne bis in idem, the principle of separation between the investigating body and the disciplinary authority;
b) The UCI, by rendering its decision on 10 April 2002, did not act in due course and infringed upon the principle of certainty of law;
c) The rules on which the UCI based its decision of 10 April 2002 were either not in force or not applicable;
d) The UCI made an erroneous calculation of the period of inactivity applied in the Appellant’s case;
e) The Appellant should be rewarded for his co-operation and spontaneous recognition of his faults and, therefore, should have been granted probation.
The Panel feels that the Athlete did not show a fully co-operative and spontaneous behaviour since he only admitted having used doping substances in the course of the criminal investigation and, subsequently, he did not disclose this fact immediately to the national and international cycling bodies.
However, the Athlete did contribute in a relevant way to the fight against doping, insofar as he broke the «wall of silence» and contributed with his testimony to the criminal indictment and sporting penalisation of other people – in particular, one well-known physician – responsible of doping practices. The Panel concluded to follow the UCI’s proposal and to grant probation for two months to the Appellant.
In view of the foregoing reasons, the Panel holds that the term of suspension of the Athlete must be calculated.
- Beginning of the suspension: on the day following the decision of suspension rendered by the FCI: 24 November 2001.
- Minimum suspension of six months starting from 24 November 2001, thus ending on 24 May 2002.
- Period of inactivity for the Athlete.: from 24 November 2001 till 20 January 2002, i.e. 58 days to be added to the term of suspension.
- End of the term of suspension taking into account the period of inactivity of The Athlete (24 May 2002 plus 58 days): 21 July 2002.
- Addition of the period of time between 6 March 2002 and 10 April 2002 during which the Athlete was under no suspension and was free to compete (35 days): 25 August 2002.
- Reduction of two months of the term of suspension as a probation period: 25 June 2002 (end of the term of effective suspension imposed on the Appellant).
Therefore on 8 August 2002 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides that:
1.) The Appeal filed by the Athlete, on 16 April 2002 is partially admitted.
2.) The Athlete is suspended, taking into account a period of inactivity, from 24 November 2001 until 25 June 2002. The fine of CHF 2'000.- is confirmed.
3. (...).
