CAS 2012/A/2924 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) v. Monica Bascio & United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)
Cycling
Doping (tuaminoheptane)
Conditions of reduction of the standard period of ineligibility for specified substances
Absence of intent to enhance sport performance
Assessment of the degree of fault
Fine
1. According to the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR), two conditions must be satisfied to allow for a reduction of the period of ineligibility for specified substances. The first condition is whether the athlete can establish how the specified substance entered his/her body. The second condition is whether s/he can establish in the circumstances of his/her case and by producing corroborating evidence in addition to his/her word that such specified substance was not intended to enhance his/her sport performance. Those conditions must be established to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel.
2. The mere fact that an athlete did not know a product taken to treat a condition contained a specified substance does not itself establish the relevant absence of intent. However, the facts that an athlete’s bona fide statements were never challenged by the other parties and that an athlete declared the name of the product used on his/her doping control form are factors speaking in favour of an absence of intent to enhance sport performance.
3. According to the UCI ADR the athlete’s degree of fault shall be the criterion considered in assessing any reduction of the period of ineligibility. The negligence of an athlete on the one hand and the circumstances speaking for a short period of ineligibility on another hand shall be considered together. Those elements seen as a whole may speak in favour of a minor anti-doping rule violation justifying a reduced sanction.
4. It would be inappropriate to impose a financial penalty on an athlete where it was not demonstrated that the latter received a salary or any financial rewards in consideration for his/her sports activities. Furthermore, a fine is not justified in a case in which there was no intent to gain any unfair advantage over other competitors or to interfere with fair competition, and where there was no demonstration that an athlete otherwise met the requirements of the very specific mandatory UCI ADR provision on fines.
On 14 August 2012 the Paracyclist Monica Bascio accepted from the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) a retroactive 3 month period of ineligibility after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance tuaminoheptane.
Hereafter in September 2012 the International Cycling Union (UCI) appealed the USADA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The UCI requested the Panel to set aside the USADA decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete including a fine and payment for costs. The UCI asserted that the Athlete committed the anti-doping rule violation for the use of a prohibited substance without an approved TUE and due to negligence with her medication.
The Athlete requested the Panel to uphold the imposed sanction and submitted that she gave a prompt admission and established the origin of the prohibited substance. She asserted that the violation was non intentional and she researched the ingredients of her medication before using.
USADA argued that the Athlete clearly established the source of the prohibited substance in her system and that the violation was non intentional as ground for imposing a reduced appropriate and justified sanction.
The Panel concludes that the Athlete has committed a minor anti-doping rule violation which justifies a reduced sanction. A period of ineligibility of 3 months is therefore appropriate in the circumstances. In coming to this result, the Panel has had regard to USADA’s cogently reasoned decision. The Panel also bore in mind the delay in notification of the positive test and the delay in giving notice of intention to appeal against the decision of USADA until the last possible moment shortly after the Athlete had competed in the Paralympic Games and after the Athlete had served the period of ineligibility imposed upon her by the Decision of USADA. The UCI’s request to impose a fine on the Athlete finds the Panel inappropriate in this case and is rejected.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 14 June 2013 that:
1.) The appeal filed by UCI on 14 September 2012 against the decision of USADA of 14 August 2012 is dismissed.
2.) The decision of 14 August 2012 of USADA is confirmed.
3.) (…).
4.) (…).
5.) All other requests for relief are rejected.
