In March 2015 the International Cycling Union (UCI) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the (already retired) Spanish cyclist Juan José Cobo Acebo after an UCI expert panel concluded unanimously in July 2014, in December 2014, in November 2015 and again in May 2016 in their Experts Reports, that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping in 2009 and in 2011.
This conclusion of the UCI expert panel is based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 2 December 2007 until 2 May 2013 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).
Previously the Athlete submitted 3 explanations to the UCI about the circumstances surrounding the collected samples which were rejected by the Expert Panel in their Experts Reports submitted in July 2014, in November 2015 and in May 2016.
After notification the Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequences, he failed to file a statement in his defence nor did he attend the hearing of the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal. The Sole Arbitrator settled the case based on the written submissions of the parties.
In his explanations the Athlete argued:
• The Expert Panel had made inconsistent definitions of what was normal and abnormal;
• The ABP assessment was based on a “comparison with an unknown population of athletes”;
• The variances in his blood values could be due to inter-laboratory variation;
• His OFF-score marker did not breach his individual limits and that the variances in the RET values were in line with publically available data on cyclists;
• The samples taken during the 2009 World Championships could have been affected by a traumatic humerus fracture which occurred in August 2009;
• General analytical issues (such as absence of duplicate analyses and temperature variation) could have impacted his profile; and
• His profile during the 2011 Vuelta was “similar to the profile described in large samples of cyclists”.
• The Athlete compared his ABP with the alleged haematological data of a “model cyclist”, in order to conclude that his profile was normal;
• The Athlete further argued that in addition to his humerus fracture, he had been treated with corticosteroids in 2009, following a tendon injury and that prior to the World Championships, he underwent intermittent hypoxic training.
• As argued in his first explanation, the haemoglobin variation could be due to inter-laboratory variation;
• The Expert Panel had arbitrarily analysed the ABP and had not relied on appropriate studies to do so;
• That one of his samples, sample 32, had been affected by high temperature variations.
UCI contended that the Expert Panel had carefully addressed all of the arguments raised by the Athlete in his 3 explanations and dismissed them in full.
The Sole Arbitrator finds that the arguments raised by the Athlete during the results management process before the UCI have been correctly addressed by the Expert Panel. Further based on the UCI’s petition and on the Athlete’s explanations submitted to the UCI, and taking into consideration that the Athlete failed to dispute the Expert Panel’s 4th and final Report and/or answer to the UCI’s petition in any way, the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete did not set forth any legal basis on which his arguments may rely. As a result the Sole Arbitrator does not find any evidence allowing him to depart from the Expert Panel’s four reports on file.
In evaluating the Athlete’s explanation and the UCI’s petition and all the evidence before him, and applying the standard of proof in the context of the assessment of evidence before him, the Sole Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation of Article 21.2. UCI ADR 2009, in fact the Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method. The Sole Arbitrator deems that there are aggravating circumstances in this case and that there were substantial delays in this case not attributed to the UCI.
Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Panel decides on 13 June 2019 to impose a fine and a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision. The UCI legal costs, the costs for the results management and the ABP documentation package shall be borne by the Athlete.
