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

In July 2007 the sailer Simon Daubney tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. Consequently on 29 September 2007 the Amerca's Cup Jury concluded that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation and the case was referred to Swiss Olympic. 

However on 24 January 2008 the Swiss Olympic Disciplinary Committee concluded that the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation and it decided not to impose any sanction upon him.

Hereafter in March 2008 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the decision of Swiss Olympic with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

WADA deems that the Athlete failed to provide a valid explanation for the positive test, nor that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. It contended that the found concentration of Cocaine in the Athlete sample was not consistent with his allegation that his drink was spiked with Cocaine by a person at the material time before the sample collection.

The Athlete testified that before the sample collection procedure, he visited public establishments, where he accepted drinks from strangers, who must have put cocaine into one of his drinks. In order to corroborate his allegations, he produced a number of statements and documents establishing his good character as well as the very strong hostility of the fans of Team New Zealand.

In view of the circumstances, the Athlete asserted that the possibility of an intentionally organised contamination with the intent to harm him and Team Alinghi is credible. Further he argued that the scope of review of the CAS Panel is limited as it should confirm the decision of the Swiss Olympic Disciplinary Committee.

Preliminary the Panel resolved several procedural issues raised by the Athlete and determines that it has the full power to review the facts and the law of the case.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Even though the Panel is willing to accept that the Athlete did not know or suspect that the drinks at the bar in question had been spiked with a prohibited substance, the Panel cannot accept that the Athlete could not reasonably have known or suspected such occurrence, given the dangerous situation in which he put himself.

As a result, the Panel cannot accept the submission that those circumstances are exceptional and excuse the Athlete from his significant fault or negligence.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 October 2008:

1.) The Appeal of the WADA against the decision rendered on 24 January 2008 by the Swiss Olympic Disciplinary Committee is admissible.

2.) The decision rendered on 24 January 2008 by the Swiss Olympic Disciplinary Committee is set aside.

3). Mr Simon Daubney is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation and is declared inehgible for a period of two years running from 14 July 2007 until 13 Juiy 2009.

4.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) already paid and to be retained by the CAS.

5.) Each party shall bear its own legal and other costs.

6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In July 2010 the  International Wheelchair & Amputee Sports Federation (IWAS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian Parathlete Roberto La Barbera after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

Consequently the IWAS Anti-Doping Comittee Hearing Panel decided on 20 October 2010 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in November 2010 the Parathlete appealed the IWAS Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Panel assessed and addressed the following issues raised by the Athlete:

• A.) Has there been a valid adverse analytical finding with respect to Mr La Barbera’s urine sample?
• B.) If a doping offence has been committed, can Mr La Barbera prove, considering the required standard of evidence, how the prohibited substance entered his system?
• C.) If Mr La Barbera can meet the relevant requirements of evidence of the prior question, was he acting with no fault or negligence or with no significant fault or negligence?

The Panel concludes:

• The IWAS has established that Mr La Barbera had committed an anti-doping violation rule according to Art. 2.1 of the IWAS Code, since both A and B Samples have confirmed the presence of Stanozolol and 16β-hydroxystanozol, a metabolite of Stanozolol, a prohibited substance appearing on the WADA 2010 Prohibited List under category S1(1)(a), exogenous anabolic androgenic steroid (art. 2.1.2 of the IWAS Code).
• Mr La Barbera has been unable to discharge his burden of proving under Art. 3.1 and 3.2.2 of the IWAS Code that, on a balance of probability, (i) there had been any departure from the IST in the way the doping control procedure was carried out and that (ii) such departure could reasonably have caused the adverse analytical finding.
• Mr La Barbera has been unable to discharge his burden of proving under Art. 10.5 of the IWAS Code how, on a balance of probability (i) the Prohibited Substance had entered his system and that (ii) such ingestion had occurred without any (Significant) Fault or Negligence.
• As a result, the appeal filed by Mr La Barbera has to be dismissed and, taking into account Art. 9, 10.1 and 10.2 of the IWAS Code (see paras 22-24), the decision issued by the IWAS Tribunal on 20 October 2010 is affirmed.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 May 2011:

1.) The appeal filed on 17 November 2010 by Mr Roberto La Barbera against the decision of the IWAS Anti-Doping Committee Hearing Panel dated 20 October 2010 is dismissed.

2.) The decision rendered on 20 October 2010 by the IWAS Anti-Doping Committee Hearing Panel is confirmed.

(…)

5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

• CAS 2009/A/1879 Alejandro Valverde Belmonte v. Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano
• CAS 2009/A/1879 Alejandro Valverde vs CONI, WADA & UCI
• TAS 2009/A/1879 Alejandro Valverde Belmonte c. Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI) & Agence Mondiale Antidopage (AMA) & Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI)

Related cases:

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

This case arises as a result of the Spanish criminal investigation commonly referred to "Operacion Puerto" which began in May of 2004.

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. 31 de Madrid.

Nevertheless in Spain the UCI was in 2007 unsuccesful in opening persecution against Mr Valverde for his involvement in Operation Puerto. Although requested by the UCI the Royal Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC) refused on 7 September 2007 to open disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Valverde.

On the other hand in Italy 2009  the Italian Olympic Committee's prosecuting officer (CONI-UPA) succeeded in obtaining evidence gathered within the Operacion Puerto related to Italy and to open proceedings against Mr Valverde.

Ultimately the Italian Tribunal Nazionale Antidoping (TNA) decided 11 May 2009 to ban Mr Valverde for two-years from participating in or attending athletic events organized under the auspices of CONI or related national sport organizations in Italy.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the TNA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to declare him innocent.

The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence and issues raised by the parties:

• CONI's jurisdiction;
• Admissibility of evidence;
• Samples collected during the Tour de France;
• Documents from the Spanish criminal proceedings; and
• Validity of DNA analysis.

The Panel concludes that CONI has demonstrated the admissibility of the evidence and that the Athlete had attempted to use a prohibited method. Furthermore Dr. Fuentes and other athletes had already admitted the use of blood doping techniques whereas the Athlete failed to offer a justification for the presence of his blood in the laboratory of Dr. Fuentes.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 March 2010 that:

1.) The Athlete's appeal is admissible;

2.) The Appealed Decision, rendered by the TNA on 11 May 2009, has been confirmed;

3.) (...)

4.) (...)

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

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.

Following deliberations the RFEC refused to initiatie proceedings against Valverde and 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 & 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)

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 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. 31 de Madrid.

As a result in 2009 the Italian Olympic Committee's prosecuting officer (CONI-UPA) succeeded in obtaining evidence gathered within the Operacion Puerto related to Italy and to open proceedings against Mr Valverde.

Ultimately the Italian Tribunal Nazionale Antidoping (TNA) decided 11 May 2009 to ban Mr Valverde for two-years from participating in or attending athletic events organized under the auspices of CONI or related national sport organizations in Italy. Thereupon on 16 March 2010 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS 2009/A/1879) confirmed this sanction.

By contrast in Spain the UCI was in 2007 unsuccesful in opening persecution against Mr Valverde for his involvement in Operation Puerto. Although requested by the UCI the Royal Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC) refused on 7 September 2007 to open disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Valverde.

Hereafter in October 2007 both WADA and the UCI appealed the RFEC decisions of 7 September 2007 with CAS (CAS 2007/A/1396 & 1402). WADA and UCI requested the Panel to set aside the appealed RFEC decisions of 7 September 2007 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on Mr Valverde including disqualification of his results.

First of all the Panel established that the two RFEC decisions of 7 September 2007 are appealable decisions. The Panel has also full power to review the facts and the law and has full power to address the Appellants' Requests for Relief.

Following assessment of the scientific evidence on record, the Panel is satisfied that the result of both the tests carried out at the Barcelona-laboratory and those carried out in Rome meet the required standard of proof.

The Panel finds that there is no convincing evidence merely speculative arguments that there was anything wrong with the samples that were tested, with the taking of the blood for those samples, with the transport of those samples to the said laboratories and/or the storage and handling of those samples there and/or with the analyses for EPO and or DNA respectively.

The Panel deems that there is sufficient evidence that an anti-doping violation was committed by Mr Valverde in 2006, more precisely on 6 May 2006 when Mr Valverde’s blood was discovered by the Guardia Civil and, as was established later, this blood contained the prohibited substance EPO.

Therefore 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 Antidoping Schweiz v/Jan Ullrich

Related cases:

• CAS 2010_A_2083 UCI vs Jan Ullrich & Swiss Olympic
  February 9, 2012
• CAS 2010_A_2083 UCI vs Jan Ullrich & Swiss Olympic - Partial Award
  March 2, 2011
  
  

Jan Ullrich, is a German former professional road cyclist resident in Switzerland. Among other achievements, Ullrich was the winner of the 1997 Tour de France and the gold medalist in the men’s individual road race at the Sydney 2000 Summer Olympic Games. Prior to the events in question in 2006, Ullrich was a member of the T-Mobile professional cycling team, a member of Swiss Cycling, and a UCI license-holder.

In 2004, the Spanish Guardia Civil and the Investigating magistrate no. 31 of Madrid opened an investigation that has come to be known as “Operation Puerto.” Pursuant to this investigation, on May 23, 2006 searches were carried out on two Madrid apartments belonging to a Spanish physician, Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes. Documents and other materials were seized from the apartments, including evidence of possible doping offences by athletes.

The Guardia Civil drafted a report (Report no 116) dated June 27, 2006, which made reference to certain of the materials seized from the apartments and showed that the Athlete had contact with Dr Fuentes. As a consequence of Report no 116 the International Cycling Union (UCI) requested Swiss Cycling to open disciplinary proceedings against the Athlete. In October 2006 the Athlete resigned his membership from Swiss Cycling and announced his retirement from professional cycling.

On 20 May 2009, Antidoping Switzerland requested the opening of a disciplinary procedure against Jan Ullrich arguing a violation of anti-doping regulations by the athlete and requesting a life ban against him. However on 30 January 2010, the Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic found it does not have jurisdiction and rejected the request.

Thereupon Antidoping Switzerland filed an appeal with the CAS on 1 March 2010 in order to request the annulment of the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber and that a life ban be imposed on Jan Ullrich. The CAS arbitration was interrupted by several procedural incidents which delayed this matter significantly.

The CAS Panel deemed that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the request of Antidoping Switzerland, taking into account the absence of a valid arbitration agreement between Antidoping Switzerland and Jan Ullrich to refer their dispute to the CAS.

The CAS Panel noted that the written agreement signed by Jan Ullrich at the time of his request for a licence at Swiss Cycling in November 2005 related solely to the regulations of UCI, Swiss Cycling and Swiss Olympic.

At that time, Antidoping Switzerland did not yet exist. Furthermore, the amendments to the Statutes of Swiss Olympic on 1 July 2008 establishing the creation of Antidoping Switzerland in replacement of the former Anti-doping Panel of Swiss Olympic could not be opposed to Jan Ullrich, considering that he was no longer a member of Swiss Cycling as from 19 October 2006.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decides on 30 November 2011:

1.) the appeal filed by Antidoping Swizerland on 1 March 2010 against Jan Ulrich is dismissed because of the lack of an arbitration agreement between the parties.

2.) (...)

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 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 determines 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 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 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.