Q&A response to public comments on the proceedings
involving Mr. Froome : Press Release / Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI). - Aigle : UCI, 2018

There have been a lot of requests from the public to provide further information on why the case was closed. According to public reports, Dr. Olivier Rabin, Senior Executive Director, Sciences and International Partnerships of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has stated that more detailed information would have to come from the UCI.

The key factors as far as the UCI was concerned arose after the following procedural steps:

(i) after a first evidentiary phase, Mr. Froome requested information from WADA in late January 2018 – he received a response in early March 2018;
(ii) in late March 2018, Mr. Froome then sent a formal request for further information on the salbutamol regime to WADA – he received a response on 15 May 2018;
(iii) on 4 June 2018, Mr. Froome submitted his explanation; and
(iv) on 28 June 2018, WADA provided its position on the case to UCI.

The most relevant factors to the UCI’s decision were:

(i) First, obviously, WADA’s position
(ii) The second key element was the new WADA Technical Document of 2018 which entered into force on 1 March 2018 (WADA TD2018DL)
(iii) Thirdly, Mr. Froome’s expert reports
(iv) The specific context and the substance of the case
(v) New WADA commissioned studies

In March 2015 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French cyclist Lloyd Mondory after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance erythropoietin (EPO).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.
The Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequences, he didn’t file a statement in his defence nor did he attend the hearing of the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal (UCI-ADT).

Without the Athlete’s response the Tribunal concludes that the prensence of EPO has been established and that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation.
Therefore the UCI-ADT decides on 30 October 2015 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete including disqualification of his results and payment of fine, fees and costs.

In July 2015 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian cyclist Luca Paolini after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequences, he filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal (UCI-ADT).

The Athlete gave a prompt admission, explained that the use of the substance was recreational, out-of-competion, unrelated to competition and not intentional.
Considering the findings the Tribunal finds that the Athlete regularly and intentionally consumed a substance that is prohibited in-competition and that there is no basis to assume that he acted “with utmost care”, i.e. with “No Fault or Negligence”.

Therefore the UCI-ADT decides on 13 April 2016 to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 7 July 2015. The sanction is including disqualification of his results and payment of costs and expenses.

Related case:
CAS 2016/A/4648 Blaža Klemenčič vs UCI
March 3, 2017

In 2015 the International Cycling Union (UCI) decided to retest the samples of the Slovenian cyclist Blaža Klemenčič. The Athlete’s samples were collected in March 2012 and the retesting was conducted in accordance with the new WADA Technical Document TD 2014EPO in order to reflect recent scientific devlopments in the detection of erythropoietin (EPO).

In September 2015 the UCI has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoetin (rhEPO).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete waived an "Acceptance of Consequences”, filed a statement in her defence and waived her right to be heard before the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal (UCI-ADT).

The Athlete argued that the re-analysis of her samples was invalid under the UCI ADR 2012 to form the basis of an anti-doping rule violation. Also the Athlete asserted that departures occurred from the applicable Rules, International Standards and Technical Documents.

The Sole Arbitrator dismissed the Athlete’s arguments regarding the absence of legal basis for establishing the Use of EPO. Also the Athlete’s arguments in relation to the credibility of the Laboratory’s procedures and results are rejected.

In view of the solid factual basis of the allegation based on the Laboratory’s findings, and faced with the lack of any plausible explanation by the Athlete with respect to the detection of EPO in her sample, the Sole Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied that the analytical results are compatible with the use of EPO by the Athlete. Consequently, the Sole Arbitrator holds that the Athlete has violated Article 21.2 of the UCI ADR 2012 by using EPO.

Therefore the UCI-ADT decides on 20 May 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 September 2015. The sanction is including disqualification of his results between March and December 2012 and payment of a fine and costs.

Related case:
CAS 2016_A_4828 Carlos Oyarzun vs UCI, UCI-ADT, PASO & CNOC
May 31, 2017

In July 2015 the Pan American Sports Organisation (PASO) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Chilean cyclist Carlos Iván Oyarzun Guiñez after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance FG-4592.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The case was transferred from PASO to the International Cycling Union (UCI). Due to the reported presence of the substance FG-4592 in the Athlete’s samples the UCI requested to review the Athlete’s Biological Passport which showed suspicious hematological variations.

After notification of the UCI findings the Athlete waived the “Acceptance of Consequences”, he filed a statement in his defence and without a hearing for the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal (UCI-ADT) an decision was rendered on the basis of the written submissions.

In his submissions the Athlete disputed the validity, admissibility and reliability of the evidence and claimed that departures occurred of the applicable Rules and Standards.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete has failed to provide any evidence or substantiated explanation to provide an alternative explanation for blood and urine evidence all demonstrating that there was FG-4592 in his system. In these circumstances, and given the consistency and probative value of the evidence presented by the UCI, the only plausible explanation for the Tribunal is that the Athlete used FG-4592.
On this basis, the Tribunal determines to its comfortable satisfaction that the Athlete committed a violation of Article 2.2 ADR. The Tribunal also concludes that the Athlete failed to discharge his burden of proof to convince this Tribunal, on a balance of probability, that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the UCI-ADR decides on 26 August 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 July 2015. The sanction is including disqualification of his results and payment of a fine and costs.

In July 2015 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian cyclist Fabio Taborre after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance FG-4592.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequences, he filed a statement in his defence and without a hearing for the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal (UCI-ADT) an decision was rendered on the basis of the written submissions.

The Athlete denied the anti-doping violation and filed an objection to the jurisdiction of the UCI-ADT.
The Tribunal notes that it is reinforced in its jurisdictional ruling by the confirmation of NADO Italia, which supported both the jurisdiction of the UCI to conduct results management with respect to the Athlete, as well as the lack of conflicting jurisdiction of the TNA 2nd Section in the CONI ADR.

The Tribunal finds that the Athlete submitted a statement of defence that stated the he did not admit to the alleged anti-doping rule violation, but did not provide any other supporting evidence nor make any other assertions to support this statement. The Athlete submitted neither any arguments nor any evidence as to his position regarding the potential Consequences to the alleged anti-doping rule violation.

In considering the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds itself comfortably satisfied that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation within the meaning of the UCI ADR.

Without grounds for a reduced sanction the UCI ADR decides on 25 May 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 July 2015. The sanction is including disqualification of his results and payment of a fine and costs.

In 2015 the International Cycling Union (UCI) decided for retesting the samples of the Slovenian cyclist Jure Kocjan. The Athlete’s samples were collected in March 2012 and the retesting was conducted in accordance with the new WADA Technical Document TD 2014EPO in order to reflect recent scientific developments in the detection of erythropoietin (EPO).

In January 2016 the UCI has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoetin (rhEPO). Also in November 2016 the UCI has reported an second anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for Tampering and / or Attempted Tampering because the UCI qualified the Athlete’s menace to publicly release the (secretly) recorded telephone conversation with a UCI staff member as a conduct contrary to the ADR.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered, the Athlete filed statements with objections in his defence in both cases, rejected an Acceptance of Consequences and waived the provision of substantial assistance. Without a hearing for the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal (UCI-ADT) an decision was rendered on the basis of the written submissions.

In his submissions the Athlete disputed the validity, admissibility and reliability of the evidence and claimed that departures occurred of the applicable Rules and Standards.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete failed to show on a balance of probability that there were any departures from the ISL. The Athlete has not provided one specific reference to a provision of the ISL or other applicable International Standard that might have been violated by the Laboratory. Despite the principle of iura novit curia resp. iura novit arbiter, the Athlete must fulfill some minimum conditions when presenting the facts of the case. This (low) threshold has not been met in the case at hand.

Not only did the Athlete fail to substantiate his factual allegation with respect to a possible departure of the ISL. He also did not explain how the individual breach of a provision of the ISL could have reasonably caused the AAF. Since the Athlete was unable to rebut the presumption, the Sole Arbitrator finds that the ADRV in the form of “Presence” (Article 21.1 ADR 2012) has been established in the first reported anti-doping violation.

In the matter of the Athlete’s second anti-doping violation the Sole Arbitrator holds that the Athlete had no legitimate grounds to record the telephone conversation. The Sole Arbitrator finds that if the Athlete secretly recorded the telephone conversation he committed a criminal offense according to the Swiss Criminal Code. The Athlete tried to profit from the (simulated) criminal offense by intimidating the UCI staff member and thereby influencing the Doping Control process. The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete has committed a second ADRV in the form of attempted tampering within the meaning of Article 2.5 ADR 2015.

Therefore the UCI-Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 28 June 2017 that:

1.) Mr. Jure Kocjan has committed a first Anti-Doping Rule Violation according to Article 21.1 ADR 2012 and a second Anti-Doping-Rule Violation according to Article 2.5 ADR 2015.
2.) Mr. Jure Kocjan is suspended for a period of ineligibility of 4 years commencing on 28 January 2016.
3.) The results obtained by Mr. Jure Kocjan from 8 March 2012 until and including 8 March 2014 are disqualified.
4.) Mr. Jure Kocjan is ordered to pay to the UCI a monetary fine (…).
5.) Mr. Jure Kocjan is ordered to pay to the UCI for costs (…).
6.) Mr. Jure Kocjan is ordered to pay a contribution (…) towards UCI’s legal costs in connection with these proceedings.
7.) All other and / or further reaching requests are dismissed.
8.) (…)

In May 2016 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the German cyclist Ralf Matzka after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Tamoxifen. After notification the Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequences, filed a statement with evidence in his defence and was heard for the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete objected to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and denied that the violation was intentional. The Athlete argued with evidence and expert witnesses that the possible source of the positive test was his consumption of contaminated mineral waters during his stay with his team in Belgium. He asserted that he doesn’t bear any level of Fault or Negligence and, thus, no consequences should be imposed on him for this anti-doping violation.

The UCI rejected the Athlete’s explanation and contended that there is no reliable scientific study supporting his scenario. Also the evidence produced by the Athlete doesn’t discharge his burden of establishing the source of the Tamoxifen in his system.

The Sole Arbitrator rules that the Tribunal has jurisdiction in this case and that the violation was not intentional. He observes that the Athlete didn’t contest the presence of the prohibited substance, nor challenged the laboratory analysis or the results of that analysis. Further the Athlete didn't accept a provisional suspension and he failed to give a prompt admission.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete was able to demonstrate on a balance of probability that he drank, in a quantity of ca. 1 liter every 2-3 days, sparkling water during the team’s stay in Belgium but he was unable to prove that this was the sparkling water in question.

Considering the Athlete’s evidence and testimony the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete failed to show on a balance of probability how the Tamoxifen entered his body due to his unreliable assumption.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal Sole Arbitrator decides on 8 January 2018 to impose (without a fine) a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the proposed Acceptance of Consequences, i.e. 28 November 2016.

Costs of the UCI for the results management, the sample analysis and the documentation packages shall be borne by the Athlete.

In March 2017 the UCI reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian cyclist Alex Correia Diniz after an UCI expert panel concluded 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.

This conclusion of the UCI expert panel is based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 29 September 2015 until 31 March 2016 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).
Previously the Athlete submitted an explanation to the UCI about the circumstances surrounding the collected samples which was rejected by the Expert Panel in January 2017.

The Athlete was sanctioned before in 2009 for 2 years after he tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequences and he filed a statement in his defence. Without a hearing a decision was rendered by the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal Sole Arbitrator on the basis of the written submissions.

The UCI asserted that the Athlete committed an ADRV within the meaning of Article 2.2 ADR, which conclusion it derives from the analytical data in the ABP as well as the interpretation of said data by the UCI expert panel. The Athlete objected to this conclusion on a number of grounds: departures from the WADA Code and the IST; the withdrawn accreditation of the Rio Laboratory; the validity of the test results; and departures of the ISL. Also the Athlete argued that the UCI must provide additional evidence demonstrating that doping is a possible source of the abnormal values and that all other scenarios suggested by Athlete can be ruled out.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the objections raised by the Athlete in the case at hand are not sufficiently substantiated, whether it be with respect to a departures from the applicable International Standards or concerning the required causative link. The Athlete failed to produce any evidence to contest the findings of the UCI expert panel in a substantiated manner by explaining which of the conclusions of the Expert Panel to be wrong and for what reasons. In addition the Sole Arbitrator finds that there is no evidence on file that shows that the doping scenario is implausible.

Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator concludes the Athlete committed and anti-doping rule violation in the form of Use as the Athletes second violation and without grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Panel decides on 13 september to impose a fine and a 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 March 2017. The UCI legal costs and the costs for the results management and the ABP documentation package shall be borne by the Athlete.

In 2015 the International Cycling Union (UCI) decided for retesting the samples of the Italian cyclist Giampaolo Caruso. The Athlete’s samples were collected in March 2012 and the retesting was conducted in accordance with the new WADA Technical Document TD 2014EPO in order to reflect recent scientific devlopments in the detection of erythropoietin (EPO).

In August 2015 the UCI has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the retired Athlete after his 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance EPO.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement with objections in his defence, waived an Acceptance of Consequences and he was heard before the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal (UCI-ADT).

The Athlete disputed the validity, admissibility and reliability of the evidence and claimed that departures occurred of the applicable Rules and Standards.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the procedure of retesting was carried out in conformity with the procedure provided for under the applicable standards, i.e. the ISL 2012 and that the Athlete’s fundamental rights provided for under the ISL 2012 were safeguarded.
Also the Tribunal finds that the UCI has established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal that the Athlete committed an ADRV pursuant to Article 21.1 of the ADR 2012 without departures of the ISL or the IST.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on June 16 2017 that:

1.) The Athlete has committed an ADRV (Article 21.1 of the ADR 2012).
2.) A period of Ineligibility of 2 (two) years commencing on 18 August 2015 is imposed on the Athlete.
3.) The results obtained by the Athlete between 27 March 2012 and 31 December 2012 are disqualified.
4.) The Athlete shall pay a fine (…).
5.) The Athlete shall pay to the UCI for costs (…).
6.) All other and/or further prayers for relief are dismissed.
7.) (…)