Related case:
CAS 2010/A/2308 Franco Pellizotti vs CONI & UCI
June 14, 2011

In March 2010, a panel of experts concluded that the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP) of the Italian Athlete Franco Pellizotti showed the use of a prohibited substance of method without adequate explanation from the Athlete for these anomalies in his ABP.
Therefore the International Cycling Federation (UCI) and the CONI Anti-Doping Prosecution Office (UPA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete in May 2010.

After notification bij the Federazione Ciclistica Italiana (FCI), the Italian Cycling Federation, a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Italian National Anti-Doping Tribunal. On 31 October 2010 the Tribunale Nazionale Antidoping del CONI (TNA), the CONI National Anti-Doping Tribunal, decided that an anti-doping rule violation has not been establische due to insufficient evidence.

Hereafter the UCI and the Athlete appealed the CONI TNA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Based on the evidence in the Athlete’s Biological Passport and after the testimonies of experts, the CAS Panel concluded that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decided:

1.) To dismiss the Athlete’s appeal;
2.) to set aside the decision of Tribunale Nazionale Antidoping del CONI of 21 October 2010;
3.) to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Franco Pellizotti;
4.) disqualification of all results obtained by the Athlete from 7 May 2009;
5.) to order the Athlete to pay 115,000 euro to the UCI as financial sanction;

On 19 August 2001 The Athlete appealed the CAS decision of 8 March 2011 with the Swiss Federal Court. The Athlete filed several arguments in his defence and requested the court for annulment of the decision. The Swiss Federal Court considers the Athlete’s arguments and concludes that they are not justified and therefore decides on 18 June 2012 to dismiss the Athlete’s Appeal.

Related cases:
CAS 2008/O/1643 Vladimir Gusev vs Olympus Sarl
June 15, 2009
Swiss Federal Court 4A_352/2009
October 13, 2009

The case involved a Russian racing cyclist, Vladimir Gusev and a Belgian Company Olympus Sarl. Olympus hired Gusev for two years on November 15, 2007 and the contract was governed by Swiss law. On July 23rd, 2008, Olympus Sarl terminated the contract, alleging that a medical report seriously suggested that the cyclist had taken exogenous EPO.
The Athlete Gusev started arbitration proceedings in front of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and on 15 June 2009 the CAS Panel found for Gusev and ordered Olympus to pay damages.
Olympus Sarl appealed to the CAS decision of 15 June 2009 with the Federal Court and hereafter also sought the revision of the award.

The Swiss Federal Court rejected the appeal of Olympus Sarl (4A_352/2009) and the petition seeking revision of Olympus Sarl (4A_368/2009) on 13 October 2009.

The court’s opinion in this case:
1.) In the appeal (4A_352/2009), Olympus Sarl claimed a violation of the “right to be heard” (due process). The Federal Court recalled what it has already said many times as to the Arbitral Tribunal’s duty to ensure that each party be heard on all essential facts and enabled to present its arguments. Yet the allegedly aggrieved party must prove that the Arbitral Tribunal failed to do so and this was clearly not the case here.
2.) As to revision (4A_368/2009), the Federal Court recalled that new facts or evidence may justify revision only to the extent that they existed at the time, were unknown to the petitioner although he acted with due diligence and would have been likely to have an influence on the outcome of the proceedings. The requirements established by case law in this respect were not met in this case.

Related case:
CAS 2002/A/431 UCI vs R & FFC
May 23, 2003

In May 2002 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French Athlete R after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances methylamphetamine, parahydroxyamphetamine, d'amphetamine and betamethasone. The Athlete had a TUE for betamethasone.
The Fédération Française de Cyclisme (FFC), the French Cycling Federation decided on 8 October 2002 not to sanction the Athlete due the circumstances of the sample collection were an infringement of the French public order.

In November 2002 the UCI appealed the FFC decision of 8 October 2002 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS Panel rejected the Athlete’s argument that after signing the FFC sport licence he did not accept the CAS jurisdiction to appeal a case. The Panel also ruled that the circumstances related to the Athlete’s sample collection were not a breach of the French public order. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport sanctioned the Athlete on 23 May 2003, as second violation with a 4 year period of ineligibility and a fine of CHF 4000, -. (TAS / CAS 2002/A/431)

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CAS Decision of 23 May 2003 with the Swiss Federal Court.
The Athlete disputed the CAS’ jurisdiction and claimed that his right to be heard was violated.
The Swiss Federal court considers the Athlete’s arguments and decides on 31 October 2003 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal.

TAS 2002/A/431 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) c. R. & Fédération Française de Cyclisme (FFC)

Related case:

Swiss Federal Court 4P.149_2003 R vs UCI, FFC & CAS
October 31, 2003

In May 2002 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete R. after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances methylamphetamine, parahydroxyamphetamine, d'amphetamine and bétamethasone.

The French Cycling Federation (FFC), notified the Athlete and ruled on 8 October 2002 that the presence of a prohibited substance was established. However it decided not to sanction the Athlete due to the FFC ruled that the circumstances of the sample collection were an infringement of the French public order.

Hereafter in November 2002 the UCI appealed the FFC decision of 8 October 2002 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel rejected the Athlete’s argument that after signing the FFC sport licence he did not accept the CAS jurisdiction to appeal a case. The Panel also ruled that the circumstances related to the Athlete’s sample collection were not a breach of the French public order.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that:

1.) the UCI appeal of 22 November 2002 is upheld;

2.) the Decision of the French Cycling Federation of 8 October 2002 is set aside;

3.) Due to this is Athlete’s second violation, he is sanctioned with a 4 year period of ineligibility and a fine of CHF 4000, -

4.) The suspension starts on the date of notification of this decision.

On 4 June 1999 15 professional cyclist provided samples to the UCI prior to the course Predazzo to Madonna di Campiglio of the 82nd Giro d'Italia. Laboratory analysis of 13 of the 15 samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

Hereafter in October 1999 the Italian prosecutor of the Court of Brescia requested the Swiss Federal Office of Police and therefore the Swiss Tribunal Cantonal de Vaud (Vaud Cantonal Court) to capture the documents, at the UCI headquarter in Lausanne, identifying the Athletes who provided these samples. The Italian Prosecutor needed these documents for criminal investigations against organised trafficking of prohibited substances.

On 22 November 1999 the Vaud Cantonal Court ruled the UCI to provide the requested information. On 15 December 1999 and on 15 April 2000 the Vaud Cantonal Court dismissed two UCI appeals against the decision and UCI submitted the requested documents on 25 January 2000.

The UCI appealed the decision of 15 April 2000 of the Vaud Cantonal Court with the Swiss Federal Court. The UCI argued that:
- The decision of 15 April 2000 was disproportional.
- The provided documents have no interest for criminal proceedings in Italy, because the samples don’t constitute irrefutable proof of exogenous EPO.
- The content of the documents are ruining the UCI actions against doping and undermine their programm to protect the health of the Athletes.
- The UCI breached the medical confidentiality promised to the Athletes.

On 3 July 2000 the Swiss Federal Court rules that the arguments are without ground and therefore dismissed the UCI appeal.

Related case:
IOC 2000 IOC vs Andreea Raducan & Oana Ioachin
September 26, 2000
CAS OG_2000_011 Andreea Raducan vs IOC
September 28, 2000

Ms. Andreea Raducan is a Romanian Athlete competing in the Women’s Individual Gymnastics at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.

On 25 September 2000 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance pseudoephedrine in a concentration above the IOC threshold.
On 26 September 2000 the IOC Executive Board decided to disquality the Athlete and ordered to withdraw and return the gold medal and the diploma awarded to the Ahlete.
Considering the circumstances the FIG Executive Committee hereafter decided on 27 September 2000 not to impose any sanction on the Athlete.

On 28 September 2000 the Athlete appealed the IOC decision of 26 September 2000 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the CAS Panel to set aside the IOC decision and restoring the gold medal to the Athlete.
The Athlete argued that she bears no responsibility for the anti-doping violation, due to a cold and cough she suffered she used Nurofen medication provided to her by the Romanian team doctor. She also disputed the validation of the doping test.
The CAS Panel ruled that the Athlete’s arguments does not effect the fact that a prohibited substance was present in her system during a competition. Therefore the Court of Arbitration Panel agrees with the sanction imposed by the IOC and dismissed the Athlete’s appeal.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CAS Decision of 28 September 2000 with the Swiss Federal Court.
On 4 December 2000 the Swiss Federal Court considers the Athlete’s arguments and rules that these are without ground and therefore dismiss the Athlete’s appeal.

Swiss Federal Court 4P.268_2002 Larissa Lazutina & Olga Danilova vs IOC and FIS
Swiss Federal Court 4P.269_2002 Larissa Lazutina & Olga Danilova vs IOC and FIS
Swiss Federal Court 4P.270_2002 Larissa Lazutina & Olga Danilova vs IOC and FIS

Related cases:
IOC 2002 IOC vs Larissa Lazutina
IOC 2002 IOC vs Olga Danilova
CAS 2002/A/370 Larissa Lazutina vs IOC
CAS 2002/A/397 Larissa Lazutina vs FIS
CAS 2002/A/371 Olga Danilova vs IOC
CAS 2002/A/398 Olga Danilova vs FIS

Ms. Larissa Lazutina and Olga Danilova are Russian Athletes competing in de women’s cross country skiing at the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympic Winter Games.

On 21 February 2002 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported two anti-doping rule violations against the two Russian Athletes Larissa Lazutina and Olga Danilova after their samples tested positive for the prohibited substance darbepoetin (dEPO), related substance to erythropoietin (EPO).

Therefore the IOC Executive Board decided, as recommended by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, that these two athletes are:
1.) disqualified from the women’s 30 km classical cross country skiing event;
2.) excluded from the XIX Olympic Winter Games Salt Lake City 2002, according to Chapter II, Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code.
3.) The International Ski Federation is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
4.) The National Olympic Committee of the Russian Federation is hereby ordered to return to the IOC, not later than 17:00 hours today, the medal and diploma awarded to the athletes in relation to the above-mentioned event.
5.) The decision shall enter into force immediately.

On 3 June 2002 the Council of the International Ski Federation (FIS) decided to impose a two year period of ineligibility on the two Athletes, starting on 8 December 2001 for Ms. Larissa Lazutina and on 21 February 2002 for Ms. Olga Danilova.

On 29 November 2002 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) dismissed the 4 appeals filed by the two Russian Athletes (CAS 2002/A/370, CAS 2002/A/397, CAS 2002/A/371, CAS 2002/A/398) against the decisions made by the IOC on 24 February 2002 and FIS on 3 June 2002.

Hereafter the Athletes appealed the CAS decision with the Swiss Federal Court. The Athletes argued that the CAS Panel refused to hear their expert witnesses as violation of their right to be heard or the equality of the parties.
On 27 May 2003 the Swiss Federal Court rules that all the Athletes’ complaints about the CAS arbitration procedures are without ground or are inadmissible.

Related cases:
CAS 2007/A/1376 & 1370 FIFA & WADA vs Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebo (STJD) & Confederacao Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) & Ricardo Lucas Dodô
September 11, 2008

In June 2007 the Confederaçãoo Brasileira de Futebol (CBF), the Brazilian Football Confederation, has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ricardo Lucas Dodô after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance fenproporex.
On 24 July 2007 the CBF Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a 120 day period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Athlete appealed against this decision with the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD), the Brazilian High Sports Court of Football, which dismissed the CBF decision on 2 August 2007 due to the Athlete was victim of a contamination without acting negligent.

In September 2007 both FIFA and WADA appealed the STJD decision of 2 August 2007 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). FIFA and WADA requested the CAS Panel to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. On 11 September 2008 the CAS Panel decided to dismiss the STJD decision of 2 August 2007 and to impose a 23 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete (CAS 2007/A/1370 & 1376).

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CAS Decision of 11 September 2008 with the Swiss Federal Court. The Athlete requested the Court to dismiss the CAS Decision and argued that CAS has no jurisdiction due to STJD decisions are undisputable for FIFA affiliated bodies.
However 9 January 2009 the Swiss Federal Court rules that CAS has jurisdiction and therefore dismissed the Athlete’s Appeal.

Facts
The French Baseball and Softball Federation (Fédération Française de Baseball et Softball, FFBS) charges respondent M60 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During a match on May 11, 2008, a sample was taken for doping test purposes. The analysis of the sample showed the presence of prednisone and prednisolone which are prohibited substances according the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list, they are regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent explains that he had used medication to prevent an allergic reaction or asthma attack. He has medical documentation to prove his allergy for cat and dog hair.

Decision
1. The respondent is acquitted.
2. The decision (one month period of ineligibility) of August 9, 2008, by the disciplinary committee of the FFBS should be modified.
3. The decision starts on the date of notification.
4. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.

Facts
French Mountaineering and Climbing Federation (Fédération Française de la Montagne et de l'Escalade, FFME) charges M59 for a violation of the Anti-Doping Rules. During an event on January 27, 2008, the respondent provided a sample for doping test purposes. The sample showed the presence of prednisolone and prednisone which are prohibited substance on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list. They are regarded as specified substances.

History
The respondent thinks that the positive test derived from a pharmaceutical product he had used and tablets of an old treatment. It was used to treat a condition of fragile bronchi. He had mentioned the pharmaceutical product on the doping control form, but he had taken more tablets than was prescribed. Also there was no mentioning of the tablets of the old treatment he had used.

Decision
1. The decision (four months period of ineligibility in which respondent can't take part in competition and manifestations organized or authorized by the FFME) dated May 16, 2008, by the disciplinary committee of the FFME doesn't need to be changed.
2. The decision will start on the date of notification.
3. The decision will be published and sent to the parties involved.