TAS 2007/A/1433 Danilo Di Luca c. CONI
CAS 2007/A/1433 Danilo Di Luca vs CONI
On 30 april 2008 The International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld the three-month suspension of Danilo Di Luca for his relationship with doctor Santuccione at the center of the “Oil for Drugs” scandal.
The CAS arbitrator assigned to the case rejected Di Luca’s appeal of the suspension claiming that there was ample evidence to support allegations that he had worked with Dr. Carlo Santuccione in 2004. CAS, however, also rejected a request by the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) that Di Luca’s suspension be extended to two years on the grounds that CONI raised new issues in the appeal as the basis for the requested extension.
While CAS appeals are normally heard by a three-member panel, both sides had agreed to the appointment of a single arbitrator, Luigi Fumagalli.
On 14 October 2007 CONI decided a three-month ineligibliltiy for Di Luca's alleged links to Santuccione. The doctor, who was known as “the chemist” and subject of an Italian police investigation of allegations that he had established a nation-wide sports doping program.
In 2004, a coordinated series of police raids resulted in the seizure of doping products and transfusion records, but the investigation has since moved slowly. Prosecutors offered police records and wiretaps that they said showed regular contact between Di Luca and Santuccione in 2004. The cyclist didn’t deny the contact, but claimed Santuccione had been his family doctor since childhood.
CAS arbitrator Fumagalli said evidence provided by CONI showed Di Luca’s “frequent medical encounters” with Santuccione constituted a violation of Italy’s national anti-doping regulations. When Di Luca filed his appeal of the suspension, CONI attorneys filed a counter-claim, citing article 2.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code as reason to suspend the cyclist for two years.
The Arbitrator Fumagalli, however, ruled that since the WADA code was never raised in the original CONI case brought against Di Luca and, therefore, did not fall within the scope of the appeal.
