In September 2019 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian cyclist Clemilda Silva for tampering and refusal to submit to sample collection because of her conduct during 4 blood sample collections that took place on 5 July 2018, 21 July 2018, 28 September 2019 and 29 September 2019.

On all 4 occasions the Doping Control Officers (DCO’s) and Blood Collections Officers (BCO’s) reported that the Athlete made objections, frustrated the blood sample collection and repeatedly turned her hand or arm away during the attempts of the DCO’s to take blood. As a result only on 5 July 2018 a blood sample was collected. On the other occasions the Officers reported that the sample collection was cancelled after 3 unsuccesful attempts to draw blood.

Since September 2017 the UCI had deemed the status of the cyclist’s Athlete Biological Passport as suspicious and the Athlete was targeted for more sample collections. Analysis of the Athlete’s blood sample collected on 5 July 2018 was flagged by the UCI as an Atypical Passport Finding. Therefore the Athlete Passport Management Unit was requested to continue to collect more ABP blood samples hereafter.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequences. She filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal.
Previously in 2009 a 2 year period of ineligibility was imposed on the Athlete after she tested positive for prohibited substances. Also her sister and cousin were sanctioned for a positive test.

The UCI contended that the Athlete interfered with the Doping Control process are (i) by voluntarily moving her arm while the blood collection took place; and (ii) by purposefully offering the Sample collection personnel “bad” veins that were more difficult for drawing blood than other available veins, either by simply requesting the Sample collection personnel or by feigning injury, knowing that the Doping Control process for blood collection must be cancelled after three failed attempts.

The Athlete acknowledged that she moved her arm during Sample collection in a way that affected the Doping Control. However the Athlete disputed that the arm movement was intentional, asserting that it was “neurological disturb[ances] clinically prove[n], that led to the absences of total intentionality of the Athlete in pulling their hand away from the control”.

Further the Athlete argued that the UCI’s evidence with respect to her own past anti-doping violation, her sister’s previous anti-doping violation cannot be taken into account as evidence. Moreover, that her passport was “suspicious” cannot be taken into account “as a necessary precondition” of an anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator holds that all evidence submitted in this case is admissible including the witness statements submitted by the Athlete. The Sole Arbitrator accepts that the Athlete’s veins (at least on her left arm) are not easy from which to draw blood. This, of course, is not connected at all to the question of whether the Athlete voluntarily moved her arm, especially once the needle was already in her arm, as was alleged by the UCI.

The Sole Arbitrator observes that the Athlete in her submissions alluded to mistreatment by the various BCO’s, i.e. that she was “tortured” or “slaughtered” during the Doping Control process. She submitted pictures to support her allegations and an email from the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation (CADF).

Unfortunately, on the evidence provided the Sole Arbitrator cannot draw the conclusion that any injury shown is the result of mistreatment during the Sample collection at the fault of the Sample collection officers, especially when the Athlete admits that she moved her arm while the blood was flowing in Sample Collection #4.

To the extent that this is presented as a justification or in support of the “involuntary” nature of her actions, again, this cannot be accepted. The Sole Arbitrator is further comforted by (i) the fact that the Sample Collection personnel involved were highly experienced and (ii) the evidence relating to the multiple incidents.

The Sole Arbitrator does not accept that the arm motions were made in the absence of intentionality on the part of the Athlete. The Sole Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete did in fact voluntarily move her arm (or attempt to move her arm) during the Doping Control process, i.e. during four separate Sample Collections.

Moreover, it cannot be seriously suggested that the Athlete did not know that voluntarily moving her arm would interfere with the Doping Control process. Furthermore, as a professional athlete knowledgeable in doping control procedures and by virtue of her own experience and admission, she was well aware that after three attempts, the Sample collection would be called to an end.

Thus, the Sole Arbitrator concludes that this conduct does constitute “intentionally interfering” with the Doping Control process in the sense of art. 2.5 ADR and therefore constitutes an anti-doping rule violation for Tampering.

Considering this is the Athlete’s second anti-doping rule violation the Sole Arbitrator decides on 20 december 2019 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 6 September 2019.

The UCI legal costs and the costs for the results management, shall be borne by the Athlete.

In May 2018 the International Cycling Union (UCI has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Argentinian cyclist Gaston Emiliano Javier after his A and B sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone and it Adiols.

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. The Athlete also wanted to suspend the UCI proceedings against him because this identical matter in dispute was filed by the Athlete with the Juzgado Federal de San Juan in Argentina pending a decision of this court. However the Sole Arbitrator finds that there are no noteworthy grounds in this case to suspend the proceedings.

The Athlete rejected the test results and denied any use of this substance. He disputed the conclusion regarding the presence of endogenous Testosterone and its Adiols in his samples as he asserted that the Testosterone in his body has been produced naturally. He did not claim that there were departures from the applicable ISL.

The Sole Arbitrator establish that the applied testing techniques and testing results were valid and showing clearly that the Anabolic Androgenic Steroids were of exogenous origin. The Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete acted intentionally, failed to demonstrate how the substance entered his system nor did he present grounds for a reduced sanction.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete’s objections in relation to the principle of proportionality or human rights are not sufficiently substantiated. The Athlete’s general allegations do not suffice to set aside the clear application of the applicable rules. The Sole Arbitrator concludes that in the case at hand neither the principle of proportionality nor any human rights have been violated.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Panel decides on 15 July 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 3 May 2018.
The UCI legal costs, the costs for the results management and the sample documentation package shall be borne by the Athlete.

In April 2019 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Colombian cyclist Jarlinson Pantano Gómez after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Recombinant Erythropoietin (rhEPO).

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

The Athlete denied the use of the prohibited substance and alleged, with support of expert witnesses, that elevated levels of EPO in his system was endogenously produced due to his illnesses he suffered, kidney failure, or liver failure. Further he asserted that his ABP showed no abnormalities als clear indication that had not used rhEPO.

After consultation of scientific and medical experts the UCI rejected the Athlete's explanations for the presence of rhEPO in his samples and contended that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of rhEPO had been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator did not accept the Athlete's explanations an arguments on the alleged endogenous origin of the EPO found in his samples and concludes that he failed to establish that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 15 May 2020 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 15 April 2019.

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

Related case:

CAS 2020_A_6747 Mehdi Sohrabi vs UCI
October 29, 2020

In July 2019 the UCI reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Iranian cyclist Mehdi Sohrabi after an UCI Expert Panel concluded unanimously in July 2018, and again in April 2019, 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 24 September 2011 until 30 January 2018 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).
It was determined that Sample 6 in the Athlete’s ABP was collected 10 days prior to the 2018 Asian Championships and flaged for highly abnormal values.
Previously the Athlete submitted an explanation to the UCI about the circumstances surrounding the collected samples which was rejected by the Expert Panel in April 2019.

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.

The Athlete provided some explanations for the abnormal findings in his ABP, asserted that he was tested before without issues and claimed that in the matter of Sample 6 in his ABP there were departures of the ISTI. Because of the many irregularities that occurred during the blood collection for sample 6 he believed that this sample did not belong to him.

Considering the Athlete’s statements it is completely unclear for the Sole Arbitrator on what basis the Athlete claimed that Sample 6 did not belong to him. Since the Athlete did not contest the facts submitted by the UCI in a substantiated manner the Arbitrator finds that the UCI’s submissions are uncontested and that the Sample 6 originated from the Athlete.

The Sole Arbitrator establish that the alleged departures of the ISTI during the blood collection for Sample 6 had no impact on the test result and it was noted that the Athlete did not raise any objections at the time of the sample collection in January 2018.

The Arbitrator deems that the Athlete failed to produce any evidence that contradicts the findings of the Expert Panel and is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation in the form of a prohibited substance or prohibited method.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Panel decides on 17 January 2020 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 3 July 2019. The UCI legal costs, the costs for the results management and the ABP documentation package shall be borne by the Athlete.

In February 2018 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian cyclist Pier Paolo De Negri after his A and B sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone).

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

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substances and produced a number of arguments and explanations to contest the anti-doping rule violation and the validity of the test results.

The Sole Arbitrator examined the evidence in this case and did not accept the Athlete's explanations and arguments raised against the established anti-doping rule violation.
- The Athlete failed to prove that his ingestion of boar meat the night before the doping control has influenced the test results.
- The Athlete failed to prove that his ingestion of wine the night before the doping control was as a confounding factor in the detection of Nandrolone by IRMS in the Lausanne Lab.
- The Athlete failed to demonstrate that differences between the concentration Nandrolone found in his A and B sample had impact on the validitiy or reliability of the test results.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Panel decides on 28 January 2020 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 7 February 2018.
The UCI legal costs, the costs for the results management, the sample collection and the laboratory documentation package shall be borne by the Athlete.

In April 2018 the International Cycling Union (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French cyclist Rémy Di Gregorio after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Darbepoetin (dEPO). Without a hearing the Sole Arbitrator of the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal rendered a decision based on the Parties' written submissions.

The Athlete rejected and Acceptance of Consequences offered by the UCI and disputed the jurisdiction of the Anti-Doping Tribunal. He argued that due to substantial delays the proceedings should be anulled.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and could not explain how it had entered his system. He challenged the validity of the sample collection, the chain of custody and the testing results and asserted that several departures had occurred.

The Sole Arbitrator holds that under the applicable Rules it has jurisdiction and it dismissed the Athlete's objections regarding the delays in the proceedings.

The Tribunal establishes that the Athlete's samples were analyzed in an accredited laboratory in accordance with the ISL. Further the presence of the prohibited substance had been established in his samples and accordingly the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Tribunal deems that the Athlete only made uncorroborated allegations regarding the sample collection and the analysis procedure while he failed to demonstrate that departures could have caused the positieve test result. Although there are no grounds for a reduced sanction the Tribunal agrees that there were substantial delays not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the UCI-Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 30 April 2020 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting backdated on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 8 March 2018.

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

In April 2018 the UCI reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian cyclist Roberto Pinheiro after an UCI Expert Panel concluded unanimously in July 2017 in their Expert Opinion, 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 23 June 2016 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).

Previously the Athlete submitted his explanations for the abnormal findings in his ABP to the UCI which were rejected by the Expert Panel in their Second Experts Opinion submitted in April 2018.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequences and failed to respond to the communications of the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal. As a result the Sole Arbitrator rendered a decision based on the Parties' written submissions.

The Athlete submitted with evidence that in June 2015 he suffered from the medical condition rhabdomyolysis and was hospitalized for treatment. He argued that his medical condition and altitude training in 2015 caused the fluctuations in his blood markers. He also disputed the validity of sample 10 in his ABP which was analysed in the suspended Rio Lab in 2016.

The UCI contended that the Rio Lab was suspended from 22 June 2016 until 20 July 2016 while sample 10 was analysed by the Lab. However WADA confirmed that it had approved the Rio Lab the analysis of sample 10 in accordance with the ABP Operating Guidelines.

Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied to conclude that important abnormalities did exist in the Athlete's haematological profile and that he committed an anti-doping rule violation of Article 2.2 ADR in the form of Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that it is very unlikely that the abnormalities in the Athlete's ABP were caused by the medical condition rhabdomyolysis, nor by training at an altitude of 1800 m.

Further the Sole Arbitrator deems that analytical data of sample 10 must stand because the Athlete failed to establish a departure from the ISL, let alone a departure that could reasonably have caused a misreading of the analysis.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Panel decides on 3 February 2020 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 4 April 2018.

The UCI costs for the results management and the ABP documentation package shall be borne by the Athlete.

Related case:

CAS 2021_A_7833 Raúl Alarcón García vs UC
January 28, 2022

In October 2019 the UCI reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Spanish cyclist Raúl Alarcón García after an UCI Expert Panel concluded unanimously in May 2019 in their Expert Opinion, 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 3 August 2011 until 4 November 2018 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).

Previously the Athlete submitted his explanations, supported by an expert witness, for the abnormal findings in his ABP to the UCI. Yet these explanations were rejected by the Expert Panel in their second Experts Opinion Report submitted in September 2019.

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

The Athlete denied the use of prohibited substances and refused responsibility. He raised a number of issues regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator and the UCI's alleged negligence in the proceedings, which were rejected by the Tribunal.

Thereupon the Sole Arbitrator reviewed and adressed a list of claims the Athlete had raised, as supported by his expert witness, regarding:

• the documentation in German;
• the alleged departures of the ISL;
• the alleged departures of the ISTI;
• the reliability of the ABP data.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete did not establish a departure from the ISL, the ISTI or any other applicable Rule. Furthermore there was no departure that could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding, nor did the Athlete set forth any other potential legal basis on which his arguments may rely. The Sole Arbitrator dismisses the Athlete's arguments and deems that the analytical data of the challenged samples in the Athlete’s ABP must stand.

In evaluating all the facts, allegations, arguments and evidence, and applying said standard of proof in the context of the assessment of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied that the UCI has proven that the Athlete was engaged in doping and accordingly committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Panel decides on 8 March 2021 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 21 October 2019.

The UCI costs for the results management and the ABP documentation package shall be borne by the Athlete.

In December 2019 the UCI reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Portuguese cyclist Domingos Gonçalves after an UCI Expert Panel concluded unanimously, in August 2019 in their Expert Opinion, 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 28 July 2015 until 1 February 2019 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).

Previously the Athlete submitted his explanations for the abnormal findings in his ABP to the UCI which were rejected by the Expert Panel in their #2 and #3 Experts Opinion Report submitted in November 2019 and February 2020.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete waived an Acceptance of Consequences and filed a statement in his defence. The Sole Arbitrator of the UCI Anti-Doping Panel rendered a decision based on the Parties' written submissions.

The Athlete denied the use of prohibited substances and disputed the reliability of the ABP. He suggested that mishandling of samples, altitude training and use of supplements could explain the abnormalities in his ABP. In addition he submitted numerous independent blood analyses (by non-WADA accredited laboratories) that would contradict the abnormalities found in his ABP.

Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied to conclude that abnormalities did exist in the Athlete's haematological profile and that he committed an anti-doping rule violation of Article 2.2 ADR in the form of Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.

The Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete's altitude training and his use of supplements could not explain the abnormalities in his ABP. Further the Sole Arbitrator finds that none of the private analysis results submitted by the Athlete can affect the otherwise valid and reliable analysis of the Athlete's ABP.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Panel decides on 28 January 2021 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 12 December 2019.

The UCI costs for the results management and the ABP documentation package shall be borne by the Athlete.

Related case:

CAS 2021_A_7628 Fabián Hernando Puerta vs UCI
November 10, 2021

In August 2018 the International Cycling Union has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Colombian Rider Fabian Hernando Puerta Zapata after his A and B samples tested posititive for the prohibited substance Boldenone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and the UCI-ADT Sole Arbitrator renders a decision based on the written submissions of the Parties.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. He argued with medical opinions that his positive tests were the result of his consumption of Boldenone-contaminated meat on the evening before the doping control. He asserted with evidence that Boldenone is widely used in farming of beef cattle in Columbia.

When assessing the likelihood of the various scenarios the Athlete submited that the Panel should also take into account the jurisprudence in comparable cases. Further the Athlete disputed the validity of the test results because of the inconsistencies found in the Lab dossier and due to the partially suspended accreditation of the Salt Lake City Lab.

After consultation with external scientific experts the UCI rejected the Athlete's explanation due to the concentration Boldenone found in his samples was not consistent with the alleged consumption of contaminated meat. Moreover the found concentration was consistent with the intentional injection of Boldenone 1-2 days before the test.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of the prohibited substance Boldenone has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator deems that in the absence of convincing evidence the Athlete failed to demonstrate that there had been departures of the ISL. Also at the relevant time the Salt Lake City Lab was fully reinstated and it met all requirements and recommendations.

The Sole Arbitrator is not prepared, on the balance of probability, to accept the Athlete's hypothesis of meat contamination. Nor is there evidence on file, on a balance of probabilities, that there must have been an oral route of ingestion and that such oral ingestion must stem from an inadvertent meat contamination.

Finally the Sole Arbitrator concludes that:

• The Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• he has not discharged his burden of proof how, on a balance of probabilities, the prohibited substance entered his system; and
• he failed to show, on a balance of probabilites, that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal decides on 16 December 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 August 2018. The UCI's costs for the results management, the sample collection and the laboratory documentation package shall be borne by the Athlete.