CAS 2002/A/389, 390, 391, 392 & 393 A., B., C., D. & E. / International Olympic Committee (IOC)
- CAS 2002/A/389 Walter Mayers vs IOC
- CAS 2002/A/390 Marc Mayer vs IOC
- CAS 2002/A/391 Achim Walcher vs IOC
- CAS 2002/A/392 Peter Baumgart vs IOC
- CAS 2002/A/393 Volker Müller vs IOC
- Cross country skiing
- Blood doping
- Use of a prohibited method
- No legitimate medical treatment
1. The definition of Blood Doping pursuant to the Olympic Movement Antidoping Code (OMAC) includes the administration of the athlete’s own blood. The definition of blood doping is met irrespective of the amount of blood withdrawn and re-injected and whether or not it is potentially harmful to athletes’ health and/or capable of enhancing their performance.
2. The conditions under which a certain medical treatment, which would otherwise fall under the definition of doping, may be justified are truly exceptional and must therefore be demonstrated by the athlete or the person performing such treatment. To determine whether a certain medical treatment is legitimate under the OMAC, the CAS applies the following test:
a) The medical treatment must be necessary to cure an illness or injury of the particular athlete;
b) Under the given circumstances, there is no valid alternative treatment available which would not fall under the definition of doping;
c) The medical treatment is not capable of enhancing the athlete’s performance;
d) The medical treatment is preceded by a medical diagnosis of the athlete;
e) The medical treatment is diligently applied by qualified medical personnel in an appropriate medical setting;
f) Adequate records of the medical treatment are kept and are available for inspection.
3. In the present case, the UV Blood Transfusions were administered in a private place by a coach with no medical support and without supervision of, or disclosure to, the team doctor, the IOC Medical Commission or the team management. The UV Blood Transfusions were not even documented by proper records. Consequently, the test for legitimate medical treatment was not met and the blood transfusion must be considered as blood doping.
On 26 February 2002, shortly after the Salt Lake 2002 Olympic Winter Games, various items were found by a cleaner in a chalet in Midway, Utah, which was occupied by the Austrian cross-country and biathlon coach along with his wife. It was subsequently determined that the chalet had been frequently visited by members of the Austrian cross-country and biathlon teams.
The material discovered by the cleaner included vials and ampoules, various phosphate and sodium salts, vitamins and amino acids and transfusion equipment, including 3 blood bags (with blood residue), a blood transfusion device, multiple infusion sets (with blood in the IV lines), butterfly needles, syringes and used needles.
After an investigation, the IOC sanctioned on 26 May 2002 the Austrian team coach, the team chiropractor, and two Austrian athletes. Hereafter in June 2002 the IOC decision was appealed with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The main issues to be resolved by the Panel are:
(a) Was the IOC EB competent to issue a sanction against the Appellants?
(b) If yes: Did the IOC EB violate the minimum requirements regarding due process by not explicitly referring to the witness statement of Dr. Frick?
(c) Does the UV-Blood Transfusion as admittedly performed by Mr. Walter Mayer qualify as Prohibited Method according to the OMAC?
(d) If yes: Does the UV-Blood Transfusion as performed by Mr. Walter Mayer have to be considered as legitimate medical treatment?
(e) If UV-Blood Transfusions as performed by Mr. Walter Mayer are considered as a prohibited method: did Dr. Peter Baumgartl or Mr. Volker Müller facilitate the use of doping?
(f) Do the treatments performed by Mr. Volker Müller at the 2002 Winter Games have to be considered infractions on regulations applicable during these Games?
The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 March 2003:
1.) The Appeals filed by Walter Mayer, Marc Mayer, Achim Walcher and Dr. Peter Baumgartl are dismissed.
2.) The Appeal filed by Volker Müller is partially upheld.
3.) The CAS renders the following decision:
The ineligibility of Volker Müller to participate in all Olympic Games up to and including the Olympic Games held in 2010 is replaced by a strong warning.
4.) The Court Office fee of CHF 500.-- per Appellant remains with the Court Office. The Award is rendered without further costs.
5.) The Appellants shall pay to the Respondent as contribution towards its expenses the following amounts:
- Walter Mayer CHF 3.000.--,
- Marc Mayer, Achim Walcher and Dr. Peter Baumgartl CHF 2.000.-- each, and
- Volker Müller CHF 1.000.--.
