CAS A4_2007 ASADA vs Andrew Wyper

21 Aug 2008

CAS A4/2007 ASADA v/ Andrew Wyper

The events giving rise to the proceedings occurred on about 20 November 2005 when quantities of human growth hormone and (hGH) and Erythropoietin (EPO) which are banned substances under the Anti-Doping Policy, were seized in Sydney by the
Department of Customs on their arrival into Australia. Mr Wyper was subsequently charged with the criminal offence of importing prohibited imports (that is the hGH and the EPO) in contravention of s.233(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1901.
When the matter came before Magistrate Dillon on 21 November 2006, Mr Wyper entered a plea of guilty and was fined $2,000. His legal representative told the court that “there was nothing surreptitious at the way he did it. He used his mother’s credit card. He ordered it in his own name. It came to his own house. There was no concealing. There’s no commercial aspect to it. He was thinking of using it purely for the purpose of trying to enhance his abilities and trying to get” a professional cycling contract in the United States.
As the drugs had been seized in Sydney, the drugs were not in fact delivered to the delivery address which was his parents’ home at 50 Gordon Street, Inverell, a country town approximately 600 kilometres north west of Sydney. His subsequent appeal to the District Court against the severity of the sentence to the Sydney District was upheld on 2 January 2007.
Whilst Mr Wyper admitted to those facts which are necessary to support the ingredients of the criminal offence of importing prohibited imports, he disputed that the admitted matters
established the two violations alleged by ASADA which were (1) constructive possession of a prohibited substance, and (2) attempted use of a prohibited substance. In essence it
was submitted that the elements in the criminal offence of importing EPO and hGH differed from the elements of the two violations of the terms of the Anti-Doping Policy which were alleged by ASADA.

CAS 2008_A_1515 WADA vs Swiss Olympic & Simon Daubney

2 Oct 2008

CAS 2008/A/1515 WADA v/Swiss Olympic Association & Simon Daubney

The America's Cup is a silver cup trophy, which was won for the first time in 1851 by the yacht "America". It was then donated by the owner of the "America" to the New York Yacht Club by Deed of Gift dated 24 October 1887. Under the terms of this document the holder of the Cup becomes its sole trustee, to be succeeded only by a successful challenger in a race at sea.
In 2007, the America's Cup was in the hands of the SNG, which selected Team Alinghi to defend the trophy on its behalf, Mr Simon Daubney participated in the 32"** America's Cup sailing race (hereinafter also referred to as the "Event"), as one of the sail trimmers of Team Alinghi. This sporting event took place in Valencia, Spain and was a "first to five" (best-of-nine) series that opposed the defender to Team New Zealand, the winner of the Louis Vuitton Cup.
The Event started on 23 June and ended on 3 July 2007, when Team Alinghi successfully defended its second America's Cup title by winning the best of nine series, 5-2.
The Findings in anti-doping testing
On 23 June 2007, Mr Simon Daubney was subject to in-competition drug testing. The WADA-accredited "Laboratório de control del dopaje" in Madrid, Spain, was instructed to conduct the analysis of Mr Simon Daubney's urine sample. In its report dated 11 July 2007, it confirmed that it had identified in Mr Simon Daubney's A sample the presence of Ecgonina metil ester and Benzoilecgonina.
It is undisputed that Ecgonina metil ester and Benzoilecgonina are metabolites of cocaïne, which is a stimulant included in the list of prohibited substances under the World Anti-Doping Code (hereinafter referred to as the "WADAC").
On 14 July 2007, the positive results were communicated to Mr Simon Daubney.
At the hearing held in Lausanne on 1 September 2008 (see section III.4 below), the Appellant accepted the contention that Mr Simon Daubney volimtarily put on hold his caréer and has refrained from taking part in any official competitions since 14 July 2007.
On 8 August 2007 and at the request of Mr Simon Daubney, a confirmatory analysis was carried out on his B sample. it corroborated the results of the analyses conducted on the A sample.
At the hearing held in Lausanne on 1 September 2008 (see section in.4 below), Mr Simon Daubney declared that he was not challenging the laboratory results.
On 11 September 2007, Mr Bruce Burgess, a polygraph expert, administered a polygraph examination (so-called lie detector test) to Mr Simon Daubney. During the examination, Mr Daubney gave negative answers to the questions whether he had (i) ever used cocaine, (ii) used cocaine during the 32"** America's Cup, or (iii) used cocaine at all in 2007. On the basis of suoh polygraph examination. Mr Burgess attested in a letter to Mr Daubney that it was his firm opinion that Mr Daubney had been truthful in his answers to the aforementioned questions.

CAS 2010_A_2277 Roberto La Barbera vs IWAS

2 May 2011

CAS 2010/A/2277 Roberto La Barbera v. International Wheelchair & Amputee Sports Federation (IWAS)

Paralympic athletics
Doping (stanozolol)
Departure from the International Standard for Testing (no)
Balance of probability
Requirement of establishing how the Prohibited Substance entered the athlete’s system
Absence of fault or negligence (no)

1. The doping control form is intended to provide contemporaneous record of the doping control procedure. While an athlete’s signature does not amount to a waiver of the athlete’s right to later allege that the requirements of the International Standard for Testing (IST) have been breached, such signature is of potential evidential value in determining whether the procedures set out in the IST have been complied with. The athlete’s plain signature of the doping control records expresses his approval of the procedure and prevents him – short of compelling evidence of manipulation of the records or fraud or any similar facts – from raising any such issue at a later stage.

2. The balance of probability standard means that the indicted athlete bears the burden of persuading the judging body that the occurrence of the circumstances on which he relies is more probable than their non-occurrence or more probable than other possible explanations of the doping offence.

3. The requirement of showing how the Prohibited Substance got into the athlete’s system must be enforced quite strictly since, if the manner in which a substance entered an athlete’s system is unknown or unclear, it is logically difficult to determine whether the athlete has taken precautions in attempting to prevent such occurrence. Consequently, the “threshold” requirement of proof means not only that the athlete must show the route of administration but that he must be able to prove the factual circumstances in which administration occurred. One hypothetical source of a positive test does not prove to the level of satisfaction required that such explanations are factually or scientifically probable. Mere speculation is not proof that it did actually occur.

4. Athletes are responsible for what they ingest. Taking into account the strict liability principle resulting therefrom, in order to establish No Fault or Negligence, the athlete must prove that he did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected, even with the exercise of utmost care, that he had used or been administered with the prohibited substance.


The IWAS has established that Mr La Barbera had committed an anti-doping violation rule according to Art. 2.1 of the IWAS Code, since both A and B Samples have confirmed the presence of Stanozolol and 16β-hydroxystanozol, a metabolite of Stanozolol, a prohibited substance appearing on the WADA 2010 Prohibited List under category S1(1)(a), exogenous anabolic androgenic steroid (art. 2.1.2 of the IWAS Code).

Mr La Barbera has been unable to discharge his burden of proving under Art. 3.1 and 3.2.2 of the IWAS Code that, on a balance of probability, (i) there had been any departure from the IST in the way the doping control procedure was carried out and that (ii) such departure could reasonably have caused the adverse analytical finding.

Mr La Barbera has been unable to discharge his burden of proving under Art. 10.5 of the IWAS Code how, on a balance of probability (i) the Prohibited Substance had entered his system and that (ii) such ingestion had occurred without any (Significant) Fault or Negligence.

As a result, the appeal filed by Mr La Barbera has to be dismissed and, taking into account Art. 9, 10.1 and 10.2 of the IWAS Code (see paras 22-24), the decision issued by the IWAS Tribunal on 20 October 2010 is affirmed.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 May 2011:

1.) The appeal filed on 17 November 2010 by Mr Roberto La Barbera against the decision of the IWAS Anti-Doping Committee Hearing Panel dated 20 October 2010 is dismissed.
2.) The decision rendered on 20 October 2010 by the IWAS Anti-Doping Committee Hearing Panel is confirmed.
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2009_A_1879 Alejandro Valverde vs CONI, WADA & UCI

16 Mar 2010

CAS 2009/A/1879 Alejandro Valverde Belmonte v. Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano
CAS 2009/A/1879 Alejandro Valverde vs CONI, WADA & UCI

Related cases:
CAS 2007/A/1396 WADA & UCI vs Alejandro Valverde & RFEC
May 31, 2010
CAS 2007/O/1381 RFEC & Alejandro Valverde vs UCI
September 26, 2007
Swiss Federal Court 4A_234_2010 Alejandro Valverde vs CONI, WADA & UCI
October 29, 2010
Swiss Federal Court 4A_386_2010 Alejandro Valverde vs WADA, UCI & RFEC
January 3, 2011
Swiss Federal Court 4A_420_2010 Alejandro Valverde vs WADA, UCI & RFEC
January 3, 2011
Swiss Federal Court 4A_644_2009 Alejandro Valverde vs CONI, WADA & UCI
April, 13, 2010

This case originated from the investigation known as “Operation Puerto”, which began in Spain in 2004 as part of a coordinated investigation involving the Juzgado de Instrucción no. 31 of Madrid (“Investigating magistrate no. 31”) and the Spanish Civil Guard. The objective of this criminal proceeding was the doping practices of physicians and other parties that could constitute “offences against public health” as defined in Article 361 of the Spanish Penal Code. As mentioned infra, doping by an athlete did not constitute an offence in Spain at the time of the incriminating facts.
The Civil Guard carried out telephone monitoring, as well as numerous warrants, pursuant to which several people were arrested. Among these people was Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes, the alleged mastermind of a clandestine international doping network.
At the time of his arrest on May 23, 2006, Dr. Fuentes was carrying a card from the Silken Hotel, on the back of which was written a list of pseudonyms and the name “Valverde”.
In the context of the investigation, the Civil Guard seized a large quantity of documents, equipment, doping products (hormones, steroids, etc.), as well as bags of blood and plasma. Most of the approximately 200 blood bags seized contained a code number permitting the identification of the athlete to whom the blood belonged. Dr. Fuentes confirmed this, admitting that the blood bags identified by means of codes were intended to be re-transfused into the athletes from whom they were taken.
On May 30, 2006, RFEC was made civil party to a court action in the context of the investigative proceedings conducted by Investigating magistrate no. 31. UCI and WADA were also made civil parties to the same proceedings.
The Civil Guard drafted a report (“Report no. 116”) dated June 27, 2006, describing the organization and operations of Dr. Fuentes’ doping network, in which, in the section describing the blood bags seized, reference was made to a bag of plasma with the reference “18 VALV. (PITI)” (“Bag no. 18”); see Documents no. 114 and 116, summarized in Report no. 116, page 3).
Report no. 116 also contained a list of athletes suspected of being involved in Operation Puerto. The Athlete’s name did not appear on this list.

CAS 2007_O_1381 RFEC & Alejandro Valverde vs UCI

26 Sep 2007

TAS 2007/O/1381 Real Federación Española de Ciclismo (RFEC) & Alejandro Valverde c. Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI)
CAS 2007/O/1381 RFEC & Alejandro Valverde vs UCI

Related cases:
CAS 2007/A/1396 WADA & UCI vs Alejandro Valverde & RFEC (id:138; 31-05-2010)
May 31, 2010
CAS 2007/O/1381 RFEC & Alejandro Valverde vs UCI (id:139; 26-09-2007)
September 26, 2007
Swiss Federal Court 4A_234_2010 Alejandro Valverde vs CONI, WADA & UCI)
October 29, 2010
Swiss Federal Court 4A_386_2010 Alejandro Valverde vs WADA, UCI & RFEC
January 3, 2011
Swiss Federal Court 4A_420_2010 Alejandro Valverde vs WADA, UCI & RFEC
January 3, 2011
Swiss Federal Court 4A_644_2009 Alejandro Valverde vs CONI, WADA & UCI
April 13, 2010

Operación Puerto is the code name of a Spanish Police operation against the doping network of Doctor Eufemiano Fuentes, started in May 2006, which showed the involvement of several cyclists.
In Fuentes' clinic in Madrid, documents and 186 blood bags were found belonging to professional athletes and marked with coded names, besides EPO, steroids, and growth hormone.
The Guardia Civil identified the identity of nearly 60 cyclists, however Valverde was not mentioned on the list of the Guaria Civil.
Media attention has focused on the small number of professional road cyclists named, however sportspeople from other disciplines including football and tennis have also been connected with the scandal. Fifteen had been acquitted by May 2007, while three had admitted doping or evidence of blood doping was found.

Based on the fact that Valverde’s name and involvement was mentionded in several documents in the dossier of Operación Puerto, the UCI ordered that Valverde could not participate in the championships in Stuttgart and requested the RFEC to initiate proceedings against Valverde.
After deliberations between UCI and RFEC about the decision to exclude Valverde to compete and the RFEC refusal to initiatie proceedings against Valverde, the RFEC decided to appeal the UCI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel concludes on 26 september 2007 that the UCI decision for Valverde’s exclusion violated the rights of the Athlete. Therefore the UCI exclusion decision must be cancelled and Valverdes participation in the 2007 World Championships in Stuttgart allowed.

CAS 2007_A_1396 WADA & UCI vs Alejandro Valverde & RFEC

31 May 2010

CAS 2007/A/1396 & 1402 WADA and UCI v/Alejandro Valverde & RFEC
CAS 2007/A/1396 & 1402 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) v. Alejandro Valverde & Real Federación Española de Ciclismo (RFEC), award of 31 May 2010

Related cases:
CAS 2007/O/1381 RFEC & Alejandro Valverde vs UCI. - September 26, 2007
CAS 2009/A/1879 Alejandro Valverde vs CONI, WADA & UCI . - March 16, 2010
Swiss Federal Court 4A_234_2010 Alejandro Valverde vs CONI, WADA & UCI. - October 29, 2010
Swiss Federal Court 4A_386_2010 Alejandro Valverde vs WADA, UCI & RFEC. - January 3, 2011
Swiss Federal Court 4A_420_2010 Alejandro Valverde vs WADA, UCI & RFEC. - January 3, 2011
Swiss Federal Court 4A_644_2009 Alejandro Valverde vs CONI, WADA & UCI. - April 13, 2010

Blood Doping
No explicit prohibition in the CAS Code for the Appeal Brief to go beyond the Statement of appeal
Decision not to open disciplinary proceedings as an appealable decision before the CAS
De novo review and procedural defects occurred at the initial stage
Establishment of an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel
Use of evidence illegitimately collected in case of an overriding public interest

1. There is no specific provision in the CAS Code that forbids an Appeal Brief to go beyond the Request for Relief as formulated in the Statement of Appeal. Article R56 clearly sees to the procedural phase after the Appeal Brief. Article R51, addressing the Appeal Briefs, does not specifically prohibit an amendment of the Statement of appeal.

2. According to Swiss legal scholars, an appealable decision of a sport association is normally a communication of the association directed to a party based on an “animus decidendi”, i.e. an intention to decide on a matter, even if this is only a decision on its competence (or non-competence). A decision not to open disciplinary proceedings against an athlete was clearly intended to affect the legal position of a number of addressees, including but not limited to the sports federations and the athlete.

3. Even if there was a procedural defect in the first instance, the CAS case law is quite clear that the de novo rule is intended to address and cure “any procedural defect” that occurs at the initial stage, after all relevant parties have been heard: this can also encompass the right to be heard. Thus, there is no reason not to accept this Panel’s authority for a full de novo hearing. The Panel can – and even should – take into account all the facts with which the athlete was charged in the first instance. CAS jurisprudence also shows that, in reviewing the case in full, a Panel cannot go beyond the scope of the previous litigation. It is limited to the issues arising from the challenged decision

4. As has been held in several CAS-cases, an anti-doping rule violation has to be established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. It is common ground that this standard is greater than a mere balance of probability, but less than the criminal standard of proof

This case arises as a result of the Spanish criminal investigation commonly referred to "Operacion Puerto" which began in May of 2004.
The full facts and proceedings will not be reiterated in this award and the Panel would direct the readers to the various awards and orders that have been issued by this Panel prior to this award. Please refer to Orders dated 5 March 2008; 24 December 2008; 15 June 2009; and 22 December 2009. There is also a Preliminary Award dated 10 July 2008.

The Operacion Puerto proceedings focused on Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes, and on 23 May 2006, Dr. Fuentes and other individuals were arrested and charged with violating Spanish Public Health Legislation. This was the "final step" of the "Operacion Puerto" investigation and prosecution that had begun in May 2004 by the Spanish Guardia civil and the Juzgado de Instruccion no. SI de Madrid.

On 29 August 2007, the UCI by way of letter requested, inter dia, the RFEC to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Alejandro Valverde Belmonte (see below para. 6.3). This request was based on the UCI's review of the file and evidence gathered within the Operacion Puerto proceedings, including the blood bag labelled Blood Bag no. 18, the blood from which was portered to belong to Mr Valverde.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 31 May 2010:

1.) The appeals filed by the Union Cycliste Internationale and the World Anti-doping Agency are partially upheld.
2.) Alejandro Valverde is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 15.2 of the UCI Anti-doping Rules (version 2004).
3.) Alejandro Valverde is suspended for a period of two years, starting on 1 January 2010.
4.) The requests of the UCI and WADA for disqualification of the competitive results obtained by Mr Valverde before 1 January 2010 are denied.
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2010_A_2070 Anti-Doping Schweiz vs Jan Ullrich

30 Nov 2011

CAS 2010/A/2070 Antidoping Schweiz v/ Jan Ullrich

Der Berufungsbeklagte, Jan Ullrich, ehemaliger deutscher Profi-Radrennfahrer, ist seit 2003 in der Schweiz wohnhaft. Zu seinen bedeutendsten Leistungen zählen sein Sieg als erster und bisher einziger Deutscher bei der Tour de France 1997 und der Gewinn einer Goldmedaille im olympischen Straßenrennen in Sydney im Jahr 2000. Bis 2006 war Jan Ullrich Mitglied des deutschen Profi-Radsportteams T-Mobile, des Schweizerischen Radfahrer-Bundes Swiss Cycling (nachfolgend „Swiss Cycling“) und Lizenzhalter der
Union Cycliste Internationale (nachfolgend „UCI“). Am 19. Oktober 2006 hat Jan Ullrich seine Mitgliedschaft in Swiss Cycling mit sofortiger Wirkung gekündigt.
Am 24. November 2005 unterzeichnete Jan Ullrich das Formular „Lizenzbegehren 2006 für Athleten“ für die Kategorie Elite International sowie das Formular „Meine Verpflichtung gegenüber dem Radsport“. Am 1. Dezember 2005 ist bei Swiss Cycling
der von Jan Ullrich unterzeichnete Lizenzantrag für das Jahr 2006 eingegangen und eine Lizenz für 2006 anschließend auch erteilt worden. Bestandteile des Lizenzbegehrens und der Verpflichtungserklärung sind die Anerkennung der Statuten und Reglementen der UCI, von Swiss Cycling und von Swiss Olympic, inklusive der Zustimmung, sich dem Antidoping-Reglement der UCI, des Welt-Antidoping-Kodex (nachfolgend „WADC“) der World Anti-Doping Agency (nachfolgend „WADA“) sowie den Antidoping-
Bestimmungen anderer zuständiger Stellen gemäß den Reglementen der UCI, Swiss Cycling, Swiss Olympic und des WADC, sofern sie mit dem WADC konform sind, zu unterwerfen und an diese gebunden zu sein, sowie die Zustimmung, sich jederzeit den
von den zuständigen Antidoping-Behörden durchgeführten Kontrollen zu unterziehen, und schließlich die Anerkennung der zuständigen Disziplinarbehörden bei der Beurteilung von Dopingvergehen.
Im Rahmen der von der spanischen Guardia Civil und dem Untersuchungsrichter Nr.31 von Madrid im Jahr 2004 eröffneten Ermittlungen unter dem Namen „Operación Puerto“
wurden am 23.Mai 2006 in den beiden Madrider Wohnungen des spanischen Arztes Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes Hausdurchsuchungen durchgeführt. Die Guardia Civil, die einen Bericht („Bericht Nr. 116“) am 27. Juni 2006 verfasste, der Bezug auf einige der
Dokumente nahm, die bei den Hausdurchsuchungen in den Madrider Wohnungen gefunden wurden, eröffnete offiziell ein Ermittlungsverfahren u.a. gegen Dr. Fuentes wegen Gefährdung der öffentlichen Gesundheit. Aufgrund der damals in den
Räumlichkeiten von Dr. Fuentes beschlagnahmten Dokumente ergaben sich Indizien, welche auf mögliche Dopingvergehen von mehreren international bekannten Athleten, darunter auch von Jan Ullrich, hinwiesen.
Die Ermittlungen der spanischen Behörden führten zu Ullrichs Ausschluss von der Tour de France und zur Kündigung durch T-Mobile am 21. Juli 2006.
Eine Kopie des Berichtes Nr. 116 der Guardia Civil wurde dem spanischen Sport-Dachverband Consejo Superior de Deportes übergeben, der sie an die Real Federación Española de Ciclismo, die UCI und die WADA weiterleitete.
Mit Schreiben vom 11. August 2006 an Swiss Cycling forderte die UCI – gestützt auf den erwähnten Bericht Nr. 116 – den schweizerischen Verband auf, gegen Jan Ullrich ein
Disziplinarverfahren vor der Disziplinarkammer für Dopingfälle von Swiss Olympic (nachfolgend „Disziplinarkammer“) gemäß den Artikeln 182 bis 185 und 224 ff. des UCI Antidoping Reglements einzuleiten.
Swiss Cycling leitete das Schreiben der UCI mit den erwähnten Unterlagen an die FDB weiter, das gemäß Doping-Statut von Swiss Olympic in der damals geltenden Fassung für die Organisation der nicht-staatlichen Dopingbekämpfung generell und für die
Antragstellung und Wahrnehmung der Parteistellung in Verfahren vor der Disziplinarkammer im Besonderen zuständige Organ von Swiss Olympic.1 Die FDB führte zunächst die Ermittlungen in dem Fall fort.
Am 19.Oktober 2006 beendete Jan Ullrich seine Mitgliedschaft bei Swiss Cycling. Die Beendigung der Mitgliedschaft wurde ohne Anerkennung des Vorliegens eines wichtigen Grundes bestätigt und die unverzügliche Rückgabe der Lizenz verlangt.
Am 26. Februar 2007 kündigte Jan Ullrich offiziell die Beendigung seiner aktiven Radsportkarriere an.

CAS 2009_A_1820 Stefan Schumacher vs UCI

22 Jan 2010

TAS 2009/A/1820 Stefan Schumacher c. Union Cycliste Internationale
CAS 2009/A/1820 Stefan Schumacher vs UCI

Related cases:
CAS 2009/A/2011 Stephan Schumacher vs IOC
May 6, 2010
IOC 2009 IOC vs Stefan Schumacher
November 18, 2009

In October 2008 the French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the German cyclist Stefan Schumacher after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA).

On 22 January 2009 the AFLD Disciplinary Panel imposed a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Stefan Schumacher for a period of two years from all sports events organized by French sports federation. On 3 March 2009 the UCI issued a statement of international recognition of the decision rendered by the AFLD.

Hereafter in April 2009 Stefan Schumacher filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in order to request the annulment of the UCI recognition statement.
In his defence the Athlete disputed the AFLD proceedings; the chain of custody; the competence and capability of the laboratory; and the validity of the test results.

Considering the Athlete’s objections the CAS Panel finds that the Athlete’s rights were not violated and that the valid test results showed the presence of the prohibited substance CERA in his samples.
Therefore on 22 January 2010 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Stefan Schumacher, starting on 28 August 2008.

CAS 2007_A_1394 Floyd Landis vs USADA

30 Jun 2008

CAS 2007/A/1394 Floyd Landis v. USADA

Doping (Testosterone)
Presumption of compliance with applicable analysis and custodial procedures
Definition and construction of an International Standard for Laboratories Laboratory internal chain of custody
ISL data recording requirements
Beginning of the ineligibility period

1. Pursuant to the WADA Code, there is a presumption that laboratories which have been accredited for a particular test conduct sample analysis in accordance with international laboratory standards. An athlete may rebut this presumption by establishing by a “balance of probability” that a departure from the International Standard occurred. If the athlete shows such departure, the burden then shifts to the Anti-Doping Organization to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF).

2. The Panel must take the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL) as it is written and reasonably construed and not proceed by expanding or raising the ISL and then judging the performance of an accredited laboratory by that revised more stringent standard. This is clear from the definition of an international standard found within the ISL. Proving some other alternative standard and its breach is of no consequence in attempting to rebut the presumption favouring the laboratory.

3. The ISL requires laboratories to comply with “concepts” found in the WADA Technical Documents on chain of custody, not literal compliance with it. In addition, pursuant to the WADA Technical Document on chain of custody, testimony may be used to establish chain of custody.

4. ISL and ISL are intended to deter reworking of data sets once produced, rather than compel laboratory technicians to produce reams of documentation in the course of analysis. So long as it is clear from the final documentation package what parameters were set, this is sufficient to guarantee that the data was not manipulated in the course of manual integration for the purpose of reaching an AAF.

5. The date of a rider’s firing from his team cannot constitute the beginning of a period of voluntary acceptance of ineligibility if, after this date and before he files a “Declaration of Voluntary Non-Competition”, he engages in legal moves that show that he does not admit to the alleged doping offence.

In July 2006 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Floyd Landis after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold. Consequently he was fired from the Phonak team on 5 August 2006.

All of the A Samples from Mr. Landis' other seven samples collected during the 2006 Tour de France were tested at LNDD on the GC/MS test and resulted in a negative finding. As a result, no further testing for the B Samples was conducted.

After Mr. Landis was notified of the result of his B Sample analysis, he filed pleadings before USADA‟s Anti-Doping Review Board to have the case dismissed. On 18 September 2006, the Anti-Doping Review Board rejected the Appellant‟s petition, and the arbitration proceedings before an American Arbitration Association (AAA) Panel began.

At USADA‟s request and over the Appellant‟s objections, the AAA Panel permitted LNDD to test the B Samples of the other seven samples collected during the Tour de France using the IRMS method. LNDD found that four of the additional seven B Samples tested positive for testosterone.

After extensive pre-hearing procedures involving the determination of many complex procedural applications and following a nine day hearing held in Malibu, California, from 14 May 2007 to 23 May 2007 the AAA Panel, by its majority Award dated 20 September 2007, concluded that the charge of exogenous testosterone found in the Sample had been established in accordance with the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations.

Accordingly, the AAA Award imposed on Mr. Landis the automatic disqualification of his results in the Tour de France of 2006 and a period of two years of ineligibility running from 30 January 2007, the date of the Appellant‟s declaration of voluntary non-competition.

The majority Award also concluded that the charge of an elevated T/E ratio (i.e. the ratio of Testosterone to Epitestosterone) from the Sample was not established in accordance with the WADA International Standard of Laboratories.

Hereafter in October 2007 Mr. Landis appealed the AAA award with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel finds in this case that:

(i) the LNDD is a WADA-accredited laboratory which benefits from the presumption that it conducted sample analysis in accordance with international laboratory standards;
(ii) the athlete has not rebutted this presumption by showing that a departure from the International Standard occurred.

In agreement with the AAA Panel, the CAS Panel concludes that a two-year ban shall be imposed on the Appellant and that the Appellant‟s declaration of non-competition of 30 January 2007 constitutes voluntary acceptance of ineligibility. Accordingly, the period of ineligibility of two years shall start on that date.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 June 2008:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Floyd Landis against the award dated 20 September 2007 rendered by the AAA Panel is dismissed.
2.) Mr. Floyd Landis is ineligible to compete in cycling races for a period of two years starting from January 30, 2007.
3.) The present award is rendered without costs with the exception of the Court office fee of CHF 500 paid by the Appellant and to be retained by the CAS.
4.) The Appellant shall pay the sum of USD 100,000 to the Respondent as a contribution towards its legal fees and expenses incurred in this arbitration.

CAS 2009_A_2014 WADA vs Iljo Keisse & Royale Ligue Vélocipédique Belge (RLVB)

6 Jul 2010

TAS 2009/A/2014 Agence Mondiale Antidopage (AMA) c. ASBL Royale Ligue Vélocipédique Belge (RLVB) & Iljo Keisse
CAS 2009/A/2014 WADA vs Iljo Keisse & Royale Ligue Vélocipédique Belge (RLVB)

The Athlete Iljo Keissen is a professional Belgian cyclist with an UCI licence.

In December 2008 the UCI reported an anti-doping rule violation aginst the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance cathine (above the WADA threshold), chlorothiazide and hydrocholothiazide.

On 2 November 2009 the RLVB Disciplinary Commission decided not to impose a sanction on the Athlete due to it has not been established to their satisfaction that the concentration cathine, found in the Athlete’s sample, exceede the threshold limit. Also the Athlete established how the other substances came into his body without acting at fault.

In December 2009 WADA appealed the RLVB decision of 2 November 2009 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

The Athlete filed several objections in his defence against the jurisdiction of CAS and claimed that his ECHR rights were violated. However the CAS Panel finds that the Athlete’s rights are not violated and therefore there are no grounds for suspension of the procedure.

The Athlete stated that the his use op the product Sinnutab Forte contains pseudoephedrine which result in an excess positive test result for cathine. The other substances found in his sample were the result of contamination in some of his supplement capsules ZMA he used.
The CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to research the ingredients of his supplements before using and failed to establish that he had not intention to enhance his sport performance.

Therefore on 6 July 2010 the Cour of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision and with deduction of the period already served during his provisional suspension, i.e. 9 December 2008 until 2 November 2009.

  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period