The case involves a professional equestrian, N., who faced sanctions after his horse, L.B. 3, tested positive for isoxsuprine, a prohibited substance, during an international show jumping competition in San Marino in 1993. The Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) imposed penalties, including disqualification, forfeiture of prizes, a six-month suspension, payment of legal fees, and public disclosure of the sanction. N. contested the decision, initially filing a lawsuit in Swiss civil courts and appealing to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Swiss courts deferred jurisdiction to the CAS, which addressed key legal issues, including its own jurisdiction and the applicable law, ultimately upholding the FEI's strict liability principle. This principle holds that the mere presence of a prohibited substance warrants disqualification, irrespective of intent or fault, to ensure fair competition. N. argued that the FEI's monopoly-like structure and lack of evidence regarding intent or performance enhancement made the sanctions unjust. The CAS, however, found no grounds to overturn the decision, emphasizing the importance of anti-doping regulations for maintaining sports integrity.
A significant procedural flaw was the destruction of the urine and blood samples before the judicial process concluded, violating FEI regulations and depriving N. of potential evidence for his defense. Despite this, the CAS upheld the sanctions based on the initial test results. N. further contested the FEI's authority, claiming he was not a direct member and alleging a "disguised boycott." He also raised concerns about laboratory errors, sample destruction, and possible contamination from another treated horse, Andiamo, whose stall was adjacent. The FEI defended its strict anti-doping stance, arguing that reversing the burden of proof was essential for effective control and dismissing claims of laboratory errors. The federation also cited N.'s prior disciplinary record to justify the sanctions' proportionality.
The CAS acknowledged the minimal detected levels of isoxsuprine and the lack of evidence linking it to performance enhancement, referencing a 1998 study from the Equine Veterinary Journal. However, the FEI countered that setting minimal thresholds for prohibited substances would complicate anti-doping efforts and encourage risky behavior. The tribunal noted the destruction of samples violated procedural rules and, combined with the limited understanding of isoxsuprine's transmissibility in 1993, undermined the justification for the six-month suspension. Consequently, the CAS partially upheld N.'s appeal, annulling the suspension and procedural costs while confirming the disqualification and forfeiture of prizes. The ruling highlights the challenges of balancing individual rights with the collective interest of fair competition and underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules in anti-doping enforcement. The case concluded with the CAS affirming the FEI's sanctions but adjusting the penalties to reflect procedural shortcomings.