CAS 2018/A/5518 Mr Nicola Ruffoni v. Union Cyclistc International
Related case:
UCI-ADT 2017 UCI vs Nicola Ruffoni
December 14, 2017
On 14 December 2017 the Anti-Doping Tribunal of the International Cycling Union (UCI-ADT) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Italian cyclist Nicola Ruffoni after his A and B samples teste positive for the prohibited substance Growth Hormone-Releasing Peptides (GHRP-2) Pralmorelin. This imposed sanction was including a fine and payment of costs to the UCI.
Hereafter in January 2018 the Athlete appealed the UCI-ADT decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested to set aside the test results, the sanction and the imposed fine.
The Athlete argued that there were departures of the ISTI due to two main irregularities occurred in relation to the Athlete’s sampling process in April 2017.
Here the Athlete asserted that the doping control test occurred outside the 60-minutes time slot which he had designated for testing in his whereabouts. Further he asserted that an unknown person with the Doping Control Officer (DCO) participated in the sample collection and thus interrupted the chain of custody. The Athlete requested the Panel a DNA analysis of his sample as the DCO and the person in question may have tampered with the doping control and his sample.
As a result of the Parties' requests and submissions, the Panel establish that there are five issues that need to be addressed:
1.) Is there an apparent finding of an ADRV?
2.) Should the alleged test results be set aside due to irregularities in the sampling process?
3.) The proper sanction: should the ADRV be considered non "intentional"?
4.) Is the Athlete entitled to a cancellation or a reduction of the period of ineligibility?
5.) Should the fine imposed on the Rider be cancelled or reduced?
In this case it is undisputed that the Athlete had nominated 8 p.m. as his daily 60-minute time slot in April 2017 while the DCO came 1 hour earlier and outside this time period. Nevertheless the Panel holds that it is clear that this is not a departure from any relevant UCI rule or WADA standard and neither could it have had any improper impact on the positive test result.
The Panel establish that the unknown person who attended the Doping Control Test was the DCO’s wife and identified as a Doping Control Assistant in training. Even assuming that the DCO being accompanied by his wife, whether a trainee to become a DCO Assistant or not, and not spontaneously showing an ID could qualify as departures from the relevant regulations, the Panel finds that the Athlete has not explained in any way how these alleged departures could have caused the presence of GHRP-2 in his urine sample.
The Panel considers that in these proceedings there was not even a sliver of evidence regarding tampering, or a motive or opportunity to do so. Under the circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Athlete did not establish a reasonable basis for DNA testing of the sample and there was no basis to allow such a process which would have amounted to nothing more than an ex post fishing expedition.
The Panel concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation due to the Presence of GHRP-2 and its metabolite GHRP M-2 under the UCI ADR. Since the Athlete has failed to meet his burden to prove that his ADRV was not intentional, the Panel deems that the "base" sanction to be imposed on him is a four year period of ineligibility.
The Panel considers that the Athlete has not cooperated with the UCI and has not established that his financial situation and cost of living are such that the fine ought to be reduced. The Athlete has failed to raise these or any other factors which may be relevant to the level of the fine and the possibility of its reduction. Accordingly, there is no basis for the reduction of the fine that was imposed on the Athlete in the Challenged Decision.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 November 2018 that:
1.) The appeal filed by Mr Nicola Ruffoni on 8 January 2018 against the decision rendered on 14 December 2017 by the Anti-Doping Tribunal of the Union Cycliste Internationale is dismissed.
2.) The decision rendered by the Anti-Doping Tribunal of the Union Cycliste Internationale on 14 December 2017 in the case relating to Mr Nicola Ruffoni is confirmed.
3.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Mr Nicola Ruffoni, which is retained by the CAS.
4.) Each party shall bear his/its own legal costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.
5.) Mr Nicola Ruffoni is ordered to pay the Union Cycliste Internationale the amount of CHF 5,000 (five thousand Swiss Francs) as contribution for the UCI fees and expenses sustained in relation with the present appeal.
6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
