UCI-ADT 2017 UCI vs Isabella Moreira Lacerda
August 17, 2017

In January 2017 the UCI reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian cyclist Isabella Moreira Lacerda after an UCI expert panel concluded unanimously in July 2016, and again in December 2016, that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that she 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 10 July 2015 until 19 May 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 November 2016.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequences and she filed a statement in her defence. The Athlete request to lift the provisional suspension was rejected due to the Athlete failed to provide concrete elements in justification of her application. Also in June 2017 the UCI reported that the Athlete had breached the provisional suspension by participating in two events.

The Athlete challenged the ABP as evidence and she asserted that the ordered provisional suspension caused “irreparable moral and material damage” and that “immediate annulment” is demanded.
The Athlete stated that the alleged abnormalities in her haematological profile were caused by the use of a hypoxic device, excessive training, and the ingestion of Echinacea purpurea, coupled with illness, and in particular infection with the Dengue virus, and the associated breaks in training and medications.

The Sole Arbitrator investigates the ABP in detail and concludes that it is an acceptable means of evidence to establish an anti-doping rule violaton. The Athlete’s arguments and explanations about the abnormalities in her ABP were rejected.
On balance, and in consideration of all the Parties’ submissions, arguments and evidence, the Sole Arbitrator finds the Expert Panel’s opinions and conclusions to be well-founded and logical, and is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete committed a violation of art. 2(2) UCI ADR.

The Sole Arbitrator not convinced by the evidence that the Athlete did not respect her provisional due to the events at stake didn't fall within the scope of activities prohibited by the relevant rules.

Therefor the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 15 August 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 25 January 2017.
Cost of the result management and the ABP documentation package shall be borne by the Athlete.

In April 2016 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian cyclist Josemberg Nunes Pinho after his 3 samples - collected between 18 and 25 October 2015 - tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal (ADT).
The Athlete denied the intentional use of any prohibited substance, he claimed he was a victim of sabotage, he disputed the test results and the unreliability of the WADA accredited Rio Laboratory.

In this case, the analysis of the B Samples for Samples 1 and 2 was neither requested nor performed. In the case of Sample 3, the Athlete did request the analysis of the B Sample. The B Sample analysis was performed and confirmed both the presence of 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone. Because the test results of the Athlete’s 3 samples were noticed simultaneously in April 2016 the Sole Arbitrator determines that these are a single first violation.
In the absence of any proof that these results were invalid, the Sole Arbitrator holds that the UCI successfully established that the Athlete committed a violation of art. 2.1 ADR.

Considering the evidence the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete failed to show on a balance of probability that there were any departures from the applicable procedural rules.
The Athlete did not identify a single provision in any of the potentially applicable rules or International Standards that the Laboratory potentially violated. The Athlete failed to provide substantial assistance, he could not demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor did he establish the source of the prohibited substances in his samples.

Without grounds for a reduced sanction the Sole Arbitrator decides on 15 August 2017 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 27 December 2015.
The Cost of result management and the B-sample analysis shall be borne by the Athlete.

Related cases:

• CAS OG_AD_2016_03 IOC vs Kleber Da Silva Ramos
  August 18, 2016
• CAS OG_AD_2016_06 IOC vs Kleber Da Silva Ramos
  August 20, 2016

Mr. Kleber Da Silva Ramos is a Brazilian Athlete competing in the road race cyling event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On August 2016 the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA). A provional suspension was ordered and on 12 August 2016 the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel decided to exclude him from the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

As a result of the CAS decision of 12 August 2016 the International Cycling Union (UCI) notified the Athlete in August 2016 about the committed anti-doping violation, requested the Athlete to file a statement in his defence and proposed an Acceptance of Consequences.

In his submissions the Athlete admitted the anti-doping violation, he accepted the proposed 4 year suspension but requested to be exempted from the payment of any fines and procedural costs. The Athlete asserted that the anti-doping violation was the result of the use of contaminated supplements or medications.

Hereafter the Athlete failed to demonstrate the source of the prohibited substance, did not respond about his financial situation, nor about the proposed Acceptance of Consequences. The Athlete’s council ceased to represent him in February 2017 and further he failed to respond to any of the UCI’s communications.

The UCI referred the case to the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal (UCI-ADT) in August 2017 and requested the Sole Arbitrator to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete including disqualification of his results and payment of fine, fees and costs.

Without the Athlete’s response the Tribunal concludes that the Athlete has committed the anti-doping rule violation. Therefore the UCI-ADT decides on 8 January 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 August 2016.
This sanction is including disqualification of his results and payment of fine, fees and costs.

Related case:
CAS 2018_A_5518 Nicola Ruffoni vs UCI
November 15, 2018

In May 2017 the UCI reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian cyclist Nicola Ruffoni after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance GHRP-2.

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.

In his submissions the Athlete denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance. He disputed the reliability of the test results and he objected the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. He alleged that he had been the victim of sabotage or a contaminated product and argued that he tested negative in April and May 2017.

Because the analysis of the Athlete’s A and B samples revealed the presence of GHRP-2 the Sole Arbitrator is comfortable satisfied that the Athlete committed the anti-doping rule violation.
The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete in any way failed to establish a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL). Also he failed to demonstrate, on a balance of probability, that the volation was not intentional.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal Sole Arbitrator dismissed the Athlete’s arguments and allegations and decides on 14 December 2017 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 4 May 2017.

Costs of the UCI for the results management, the sample analysis, the out-of-competition testing and the ABP documentation package shall be borne by the Athlete.

In January 2018 the Barcelona Lab reported to the International Cycling Union (UCI) a suspicious adverse analystical finding regarding the Spanish cyclist Sergtio Perez Gutierez. There was insuffient urine to conduct further analysis, thus it was necessary to split the Athlete’s B sample.

When notified about the split and further analysis that would be conducted on his B sample the Athlete failed to respond in this matter.
As a result the Athlete B-sample was analysed and in April 2017 the Barcelona Lab reported an Adverse Anlytical Finding for the prohibited substances Androsterone and Etiocholanolone.

In May 2017 the UCI reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete, ordered a provisional suspension and proposed an Acceptance of Consequences. Again the Athlete failed to respond to any of the communications from the UCI. Without a hearing a decision was rendered by the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal Sole Arbitrator on the basis of the written submissions.

At request the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Health in Sport (AEPSAD) contacted the Athlete and here he admitted the use of Testosterone, disputed the B Sample splitting procedure and the proposed sanction.

In the matter of the Athlete’s failure to respond in this case the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the procedural rights of the Athlete were not breached, including his right to be heard. Instead, the Sole Arbitrator considers that the Athlete voluntarily waived his right to present his position regarding the alleged anti-doping rule violations and its Consequences.

The Sole Arbitrator also concludes in this case that under the applicable rules the Laboratory was permitted to split the Athlete’s B sample. Neither is established with any evidence or arguments that this analysis was misaligned with the applicable rules. Considering the test results the Sole Arbitrator holds that the UCI established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal.

In the absence of any submissions or arguments to the contrary and in application of the burden of proof, the Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete failed to establish on a balance of probability that the violation was not intentional, nor did he successfully establish the origin of the Prohibited Substances in his system.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal Sole Arbitrator decides on 25 April 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 3 May 2017. Costs of the UCI for the results management shall be borne by the Athlete.

In November 2016 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Colombian rider Wilson Ramiro Rincón Díaz after his blood sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA). Previously in 2010 the Athlete was sanctioned for 2 years for the presence of the substance Gonadotrophin.
At the same time in 2016 two other team riders tested positive for CERA and in December 2016 the UCI Disciplinary Commission suspended his cycling team Funvic Soul Cycles-Carrefour for 55 days.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and proposed an Acceptance of Consequences. In this case the Athlete’s B sample was split due to there was insufficient volume in his A sample to conduct the required analyses. The Athlete failed to respond to any of the communications from the UCI. Without a hearing a decision was rendered by the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal Sole Arbitrator on the basis of the written submissions.

The Tribunal holds that the Athlete was given ample opportunity to express his views on all relevant facts, to submit written observations, to present his own evidence and to actively and proactively participate in the present procedure. This notwithstanding, the Athlete decided not to respond to any of the communication from the UCI. He voluntarily waived his right to present his position regarding the potential Consequences to the alleged anti-doping rule violations and, generally, did not make any representation to the Tribunal nor produce any evidence – despite several invitations to do so.

Considering the test results the Tribunal determines to its comfortable satisfaction that the UCI successfully established that the Athlete committed a second anti-doping rule violation and that an 8 year period of ineligiblility shall be imposed on the Athlete without a fine.

Therefore the Tribunal decides on 27 June 2018:

1.) The Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation (Article 2.1 of the ADR).
2.) A period of Ineligibility of 8 (eight) years commencing on the date of this Judgment, i.e. 27 June 2018, is imposed on the Athlete.
3.) The provisional suspension already served by the Athlete, starting from 9 November 2016 shall be credited against the eight-year period of Ineligibility.
4.) The results obtained by the Athlete between 27 July 2016 and 9 November 2016, including the Tour of Portugal 2016, are disqualified.
5.) The Athlete shall pay to the UCI CHF 2’500 (two thousand and five hundred Swiss Francs) for the costs of the results management by the UCI.
6.) The Athlete shall pay to the UCI CHF 3’000 (three thousand Swiss francs) for the costs of these proceedings.
7.) All other and/or further reaching requests are dismissed.
8.) (…)

Related case:

CAS 2018_A_6069 André Cardoso vs UCI
February 10, 2021

In June 2017 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Portuguese Rider André Cardoso after his A-sample tested positive for the prohibited substance rhEPO. However the Rider’s B-sample did not confirm the test result of the A-sample, nor the analysis of his blood sample provided on the same day as the urine sample on 18 June 2017.

With these results in his favour the Athlete, supported by an expert witness, sought to annul the A-sample analysis result. The UCI sought scientific confirmation that the A-sample reliably identified rhEPO and that there was a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the B-sample.

On 16 January 2018, UCI submitted to the Rider an Acceptance of Consequences (AoC) proposal according to Article 8.4 of the UCI ADR. UCI enclosed three further scientific reports supporting the terms of the proposed AoC, in order for the Rider to make an informed decision:

• a report rejecting the Rider’s accidental swap scenario (the Second Laboratory Report),
• a second report addressing the Rider’s allegation that microbial degradation could have caused his AAF, the reasons behind the lack of confirmation of the presence of rhEPO in the Rider’s B-sample and why his blood serum sample had not tested positive for rhEPO (the Second Seibersdorf Opinion) and
• a report by Prof. Hugues Henry and Dr. Martial Saugy which comprehensively addressed Athlete’s expert witness’ developments on possible metabolism disorders of the Rider and ruled them out as a possible cause for his positive A-sample (the Henry/Saugy Report).

The Athlete rejected the AoC in January 2018 and the UCI referred the case to the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal (UCI-ADT).
Without a hearing a decision was rendered by the UCI-ADT Sole Arbitrator on the basis of the written submissions.

The Rider requested to lift his provisional suspension and argued there is no ADRV since the A-sample analysis was not confirmed by the B-sample analysis and thus cannot establish the use of a prohibited substance. In any case, the A-sample analysis is not reliable enough according to his expert witness’ Opinions as there are many causes that can explain the presence of rhEPO in the Rider’s A-sample in the present case.

The UCI requested to impose a sanction on the Rider for the Use of rhEPO. The UCI contended that the ADRV has been established on the basis of reliable evidence and none of the explanations offered by the Rider can explain the presence of rhEPO in his system, in particular considering the fact that the Rider has not responded to or addressed the latest scientific evidence provided to him by the UCI.

The evidence before the Tribunal, which was not rebutted by the Rider, shows to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator that the existence of a blood sample negative for rhEPO does not exclude the possibility that a urine sample collected by the same rider on the same day may test positive for rhEPO. Therefore, the Rider’s argument that the result of his blood test directly challenges the reliability of the A-sample result, is rejected as unfounded.

The Sole Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied by the assessment of the evidence at hand that the conditions established by Article 2.2 of the UCI ADR (and the comment thereto) which allow a Use ADRV to be established based upon
(a) reliable analytical data from the analysis of an A-sample alone (without confirmation from an analysis of a B-sample) and
(b) where the prosecuting authority provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other sample,
are satisfied in this matter.

Moreover, the Sole Arbitrator deems that the Rider has failed to substantiate that the presence of rhEPO in his A-sample resulted from an accidental swap of samples or a congenital/ethanol-induced disorder or a microbial activity. Therefore, the Single Judge concludes that the Rider has committed an ADRV under Article 2.2 of the UCI ADR.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 15 November 2018:

1.) Mr. André Cardoso has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (article 2.2 UCI ADR).
2.) Mr. André Cardoso is suspended for a period of ineligibility of four (4) years commencing on the date of this Judgment, i.e. on 15 November 2018.
3.) The provisional suspension already served by Mr. André Cardoso, starting from 27 June 2017, shall be credited against the four-year period of Ineligibility.
4.) The results obtained by Mr. André Cardoso between 18 June 2017 and 27 June 2017, if any, are disqualified.
5.) Mr. André Cardoso is ordered to pay to the UCI a monetary fine.
6.) Mr. André Cardoso is ordered to pay to the UCI:
- a.) the amount of CHF 2'500 for costs of the results management;
- b.) the amount of CHF 510 for costs of the B-sample analysis;
- c.) the amount of CHF 600 for costs of the A and B Sample Laboratory Documentation Packages; and
- d.) the amount of CHF 1'500 for costs of the out-of-competition testing.
7.) (…).
8.) (…).

In June 2018 the UCI reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Spanish cyclist Jaime Roson Garcia after an UCI expert panel concluded unanimously in October 2017, and again in May 2018, 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 20 January 2016 until 13 March 2017 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 May 2018.

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

Supported by experts the Athlete disputed the reliability of the analytical results in his ABP of the samples 7 and 8 due to departures during the chain of custody. He also argued that the abnormalities in his ABP can be explained by a parvovirus B19 infection, by in vitro haemolysis or by a combination of the two scenarios.

Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator finds the Expert Panel’s opinion to be well-founded, logical and compelling to conclude that important abnormalities did exist in the Athlete’s haematological profile. The Sole Arbitrator does not accept the Athlete’s allegations on the temperature during storage and transportation time of samples number 7 and 8 and uphold the analytical data of these samples in the Athlete’s ABP.

Further the Arbitrator concludes that it is very unlikely that the abnormalities in the Athlete’s ABP were caused by a parvovirus B19 infection, by in vitro haemolysis, by partial haemolysis or haemolysis and parvovirus B19 infection in combination. Consequently the Sole Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation through the use of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Panel decides on 15 February 2019 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 June 2018. The UCI legal costs and the costs for the results management and the ABP documentation package shall be borne by the Athlete.

In January 2018 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Costa Rican cyclist Jeancarlo Padilla after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance EPO.

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 Athlete stated that he was innocent of an anti-doping rule violation, renounced his right to request the analysis of his B Sample for reasons of lack of resources, and presented various arguments related to irregularities in the notification, Sample collection process, and Sample analysis.

The Sole Arbitrator is satisfied that the notification was given to the Athlete in a manner that enabled him to exercise his rights and in particular, his right to be heard. Thus, the notification of the Adverse Analytical Finding was properly made to the Athlete. Further the alleged lack of availability of the mentioned documents in Spanish does not violate the Athlete’s right to present a defence, right to be heard, or any other fundamental rights under the circumstances of this case.

Based on the evidence the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the UCI established a violation of art. 2.1 ADR to the comfortable satisfaction of this Tribunal. The Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied that the Laboratory’s report of an Adverse Analytical Finding for EPO in the Athlete’s A Sample does represent sufficient proof of the alleged anti-doping rule violation. Also the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor did he establish grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 16 January 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 31 January 2018.
The costs of the UCI for the results management shall be borne by the Athlete.

In March 2015 the International Cycling Union (UCI) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the (already retired) Spanish cyclist Juan José Cobo Acebo after an UCI expert panel concluded unanimously in July 2014, in December 2014, in November 2015 and again in May 2016 in their Experts Reports, 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 in 2009 and in 2011.

This conclusion of the UCI expert panel is based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 2 December 2007 until 2 May 2013 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).
Previously the Athlete submitted 3 explanations to the UCI about the circumstances surrounding the collected samples which were rejected by the Expert Panel in their Experts Reports submitted in July 2014, in November 2015 and in May 2016.

After notification the Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequences, he failed to file a statement in his defence nor did he attend the hearing of the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal. The Sole Arbitrator settled the case based on the written submissions of the parties.

In his explanations the Athlete argued:

• The Expert Panel had made inconsistent definitions of what was normal and abnormal;
• The ABP assessment was based on a “comparison with an unknown population of athletes”;
• The variances in his blood values could be due to inter-laboratory variation;
• His OFF-score marker did not breach his individual limits and that the variances in the RET values were in line with publically available data on cyclists;
• The samples taken during the 2009 World Championships could have been affected by a traumatic humerus fracture which occurred in August 2009;
• General analytical issues (such as absence of duplicate analyses and temperature variation) could have impacted his profile; and
• His profile during the 2011 Vuelta was “similar to the profile described in large samples of cyclists”.
• The Athlete compared his ABP with the alleged haematological data of a “model cyclist”, in order to conclude that his profile was normal;
• The Athlete further argued that in addition to his humerus fracture, he had been treated with corticosteroids in 2009, following a tendon injury and that prior to the World Championships, he underwent intermittent hypoxic training.
• As argued in his first explanation, the haemoglobin variation could be due to inter-laboratory variation;
• The Expert Panel had arbitrarily analysed the ABP and had not relied on appropriate studies to do so;
• That one of his samples, sample 32, had been affected by high temperature variations.

UCI contended that the Expert Panel had carefully addressed all of the arguments raised by the Athlete in his 3 explanations and dismissed them in full.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the arguments raised by the Athlete during the results management process before the UCI have been correctly addressed by the Expert Panel. Further based on the UCI’s petition and on the Athlete’s explanations submitted to the UCI, and taking into consideration that the Athlete failed to dispute the Expert Panel’s 4th and final Report and/or answer to the UCI’s petition in any way, the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete did not set forth any legal basis on which his arguments may rely. As a result the Sole Arbitrator does not find any evidence allowing him to depart from the Expert Panel’s four reports on file.

In evaluating the Athlete’s explanation and the UCI’s petition and all the evidence before him, and applying the standard of proof in the context of the assessment of evidence before him, the Sole Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation of Article 21.2. UCI ADR 2009, in fact the Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method. The Sole Arbitrator deems that there are aggravating circumstances in this case and that there were substantial delays in this case not attributed to the UCI.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Panel decides on 13 June 2019 to impose a fine and a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision. The UCI legal costs, the costs for the results management and the ABP documentation package shall be borne by the Athlete.