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

Cycling
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

Cycling
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 5.4.4.4.1.4 and ISL 5.2.6.1 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.

CAS 2005_A_922 Danilo Hondo vs Swiss Cycling & Swiss Olympic

9 Mar 2007

CAS 2005/A/923 WADA vs Danilo Hondo & Swiss Olympics
CAS 2005/A/926 UCI vs Danilo Hondo & Swiss Olympics
January 10, 2006


Related case:
Swiss Federal Court 4P.148_2006
January 10, 2007

In March 2005 the International Cycling Federation (UCI) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Danilo Hondo after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance carphedon. After notification by Swiss Cycling the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Chamber for Dopingcases of Swiss Olympic. On 2 June 2005 the Disciplinary Chamber decided to impose 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, with 1 year suspended for a 5 year period. Also the Disciplinary Chamber sanctioned the Athlete with a CHF 50,000 fine and ordered to pay CHF 5,000 for the procedural costs.

Hereafter in July 2005 the Athlete, UCI and WADA appealed the Swiss Olympic decision of 2 June 2005 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Considering the Athlete’s arguments the CAS finds that no departure from the ISL occurred in this case; the Athlete failed to establish how the substance entered his system and without grounds for reduction of the sanction.
Considering the arguments of UCI and WADA, the CAS Panel concludes that the UCI Anti-Doping Rules doesn’t allow the imposition by Swiss Olympics of a suspended sanction, nor the possibility to fine an Athlete guilty of an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides:
1.) to allow the WADA appeal;
2.) to allow the UCI appeal;
3.) to dismiss the appeal of the Athlete Danilo Hondo;
4.) to set aside the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber for Dopingcase of Swiss Olympic of 2 June 2005;
5.) to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 1 April 2005 until 31 March 2007.

CAS 2009_A_2023 Gianni Da Ros vs CONI

17 Aug 2010

CAS 2009/A/2023 Gianni Da Ros c. CONI

In data 5 marzo 2009, il Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari del Tribunale di Milano, un’autorità giudiziaria statale, emetteva nei confronti del Ricorrente un’ordinanza di applicazione di misure cautelari personali con relativa custodia in carcere. Alla base di tale
provvedimento vi erano le risultanze di un’indagine di polizia relativa al doping negli ambienti del culturismo milanese.
Il giorno 11 marzo 2009, il Nucleo Antisofisticazioni dei Carabinieri di Milano arrestava il Ricorrente mentre si trovava a Padova, in ritiro con la Nazionale Italiana di Ciclismo su pista.
In data 12 marzo 2009, l’UPA, avendo appreso la notizia dell’arresto del Ricorrente, richiedeva alla Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Milano la trasmissione degli atti utili al procedimento disciplinare, aperto dall’UPA a carico del Ricorrente.
Il 14 marzo 2009, il Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari ordinava che il Ricorrente fosse sottoposto agli arresti domiciliari, in luogo della custodia cautelare in carcere. Tale misura veniva revocata il 23 marzo 2009.
Il 24 marzo 2009, la Procura della Repubblica sopra menzionata trasmetteva all’UPA una copia degli atti dell’ordinanza cautelare emessa nei confronti del Ricorrente. Da tali atti emergevano, in particolare, dei testi di intercettazioni telefoniche, dalle quali risultavano delle conversazioni e lo scambio di messaggi di testo del Ricorrente con altri soggetti, tra i quali il Sig. Davide Lucato, anch’egli coinvolto nella menzionata inchiesta di polizia, ed il
Sig. Alberto Corazzin.

CAS 2010_A_2235 UCI vs Tadej Valjavec & Olympic Committee of Slovenia

21 Apr 2011

CAS 2010/A/2235 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) v. T. & Olympic Committee of Slovenia (OCS)

Cycling
Doping (Athlete’s Biological Passport)
Burden and Standard of Proof
Evaluation of the Experts’ Panel report by the CAS Panel
Application of the rules related to the ABP by CAS Panels
Violation of EU competition law
Disqualification in case of a violation found by reference to the ABP
Blood manipulation as aggravating factor for the determination of the ineligibility period
Determination of the amount of the fine according to the UCI ADR

1. The burden of proof of establishing an anti-doping violation ex concessis is imposed on UCI. The applicable standard of proof (“comfortable satisfaction”) is a lower standard than the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt) but a higher standard than the civil standard (balance of probabilities). Application of the standard to any particular set of facts may produce different results depending on those facts. But the standard itself is uniform, irrespective of the facts. It demands an exercise of judgment.

2. Any Tribunal faced with a conflict of expert evidence must approach the evidence with care and self-awareness of its own lack of expertise in the area under examination. Nonetheless, notwithstanding these caveats, it cannot abdicate its adjudicative role. A CAS panel shall apply the standard of proof as an appellate body to determine whether the expert panel’s evaluation is soundly based in primary facts, and whether the expert panel’s consequent appreciation of the conclusion be derived from those facts is equally sound. It will necessarily take into account, inter alia, the impression made on it by the expert witnesses in terms of their standing, experience, and cogency of their evidence together with that evidence’ s consistency with any published research.

3. A CAS panel is not called to adjudicate on whether some other or better system of longitudinal profiling could be created. WADA has approved the use of ABP and this has been codified in the current UCI rules. A CAS panel must respect and apply the rules as they are and not as they might have been or might become.

4. According to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, anti-doping rules and sanctions “are justified by a legitimate objective” and any related limitation to the athletes’ economic freedom “is inherent in the organisation and proper conduct of competitive sport and its very purpose is to ensure healthy rivalry between athletes”. While it is true that restrictions imposed by anti-doping rules and sanctions “must be limited to what is necessary to ensure the proper conduct of competitive sport” and, thus, must be proportionate, the Athlete has to adduce evidence to establish that the anti-doping rules and sanctions at issue are disproportionate and, as a consequence, to establish a violation of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. Although the provisions as to disqualification are expressly made applicable to violations consisting of use of a prohibited method, they are not easy to apply where the proof of such violation is to be found by reference to the ABP. The provisions are geared to the situation where the violation is an occurrence rather than a process, most obviously where the violation is the presence of a prohibited substance. Article 289 of the UCI ADR provides in its title for disqualification of results in events during which an anti-doping violation occurs. Even though the text enlarges the title to embrace violations occurring ‘‘in connection with an event’’ it is not easy in ABP cases to identify in connection with which events the Athlete’s doping violation occurred. Therefore, as Article 313 of the UCI ADR provides in its title for disqualification of results in competitions subsequent to anti-doping rule violation but is applicable only when article 289 of the UCI ADR is not, this article more easily fits ABP cases.

6. A submission that blood manipulation constitutes an aggravating factor and that a minimum three-year ban should be imposed upon the Athlete has no foundation in the UCI ADR which does not differentiate between various forms of first offence or suggest that blood manipulation attracts ratione materiae a higher sanction than the presence of a prohibited substance.

7. Article 326 of the UCI ADR provides a formula for computation of the fine with a proviso allowing for a reduction of up to a half for the financial situation of the licence holder concerned. Reduction from the figure so calculated is available under the same article where the Athlete’s financial situation justifies it. It requires a CAS panel to consider the particular facts before it.


The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 April 2011:

1.) The appeal filed by UCI against the decision issued on 28 July 2010 by the Senate of the National Anti-Doping Commission of the OCS is upheld.
2.) The decision issued on 28 July 2010 by the Senate of the National Anti-Doping Commission of the OCS is annulled in its entirety.
3.) T. is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation and is declared ineligible for a period of two years running from 20 January 2011.
4.) T.’s results obtained during the period from 19 April 2009 to end of September 2009 and from 20 January 2011 until the date of notification of this award, including his event medals, his points and prizes are forfeited.
5.) T. shall pay to UCI a fine of EUR 52,500, in accordance with article 326 1.a) of the UCI ADR.
6.) (…).
7.) (…).
8.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2010_A_2308 Franco Pellizotti vs CONI & UCI

14 Jun 2011

CAS 2010/A/2308 Franco Pellizotti vs CONI & UCI
CAS 2011/A/2335 UCI vs Franco Pellizotti, FCI & CONI


TAS 2010/A/2308 Franco Pellizotti c. CONI & UCI
TAS 2011/A/2335 UCI c. Franco Pellizotti, FCI, CONI

Related case:
Swiss Federal Court 4A_488_2011 Pellizotti vs UCI, CONI & FCI
June 18, 2012

In March 2010, a panel of experts concluded that the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP) of the Italian Athlete Franco Pellizotti showed the use of a prohibited substance of method without adequate explanation from the Athlete for these anomalies in his ABP.
Therefore the International Cycling Federation (UCI) and the CONI Anti-Doping Prosecution Office (UPA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete in May 2010.
After notification bij the Federazione Ciclistica Italiana (FCI), the Italian Cycling Federation, a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Italian National Anti-Doping Tribunal.
On 31 October 2010 the Tribunale Nazionale Antidoping del CONI (TNA), the CONI National Anti-Doping Tribunal, decided that an anti-doping rule violation has not been established due to insufficient evidence.

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

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decided:

1.) To dismiss the Athlete’s appeal;
2.) to set aside the decision of Tribunale Nazionale Antidoping del CONI of 21 October 2010;
3.) to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Franco Pellizotti;
4.) disqualification of all results obtained by the Athlete from 7 May 2009;
5.) to order the Athlete to pay 115,000 euro to the UCI as financial sanction;
6.) to pay fees CHF 2,500 to the UCI for the doping test audit;
7.) to pay CHF 7,500 to the UCI as contribution to the costs in this trial.

Category
  • 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
Origin