The case revolves around Anthony Lobello, a professional short-track speed skater, who appealed a decision by the International Skating Union (ISU) Disciplinary Commission that imposed a six-month ineligibility period for allegedly failing to submit required whereabouts forms under the ISU Anti-Doping Rules. The ISU claimed Lobello had received three formal warnings within a 12-month period for non-compliance, constituting a violation. Lobello initially admitted to the violations, citing mitigating circumstances such as stress from relocating and changes in his training schedule. However, he later appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), presenting new evidence—including a fax confirmation sheet and a declaration from his assistant coach—to prove he had submitted the required form, albeit late.
The ISU Disciplinary Commission rejected Lobello’s request for reconsideration, arguing the evidence was untimely and insufficient. The ISU also questioned the credibility of the fax submission, pointing to the absence of records in their electronic system and Lobello’s delayed recollection of the event. Lobello countered by highlighting administrative shortcomings in ISU communications, supported by testimony from US Speedskating’s Executive Director, who noted instances where ISU notices arrived too late due to procedural delays.
The CAS Panel examined the burden of proof, noting that while the ISU generally bears the responsibility for proving violations, athletes must rebut presumptions or establish facts by a balance of probability. The Panel found the ISU failed to conclusively prove Lobello’s non-compliance, as his evidence demonstrated a plausible submission of the form. Additionally, there was no indication of fabricated evidence. The Panel also rejected the ISU’s argument that the burden of proof had shifted to Lobello, emphasizing that the ISU retained the responsibility under its own rules.
Ultimately, the CAS ruled in Lobello’s favor, overturning the ISU’s decision and clearing him of the violations. The case underscored the importance of procedural fairness and thorough verification by governing bodies before imposing sanctions. It also highlighted the challenges in anti-doping compliance, particularly regarding communication and record-keeping between federations and athletes. The Panel suggested improvements to the ISU’s system, such as implementing receipt acknowledgments for submitted forms. The ruling reinforced that late submissions, if verifiable, do not necessarily constitute violations, provided the athlete can demonstrate compliance. The appeal was upheld, and the ISU’s decision was annulled, marking a significant outcome for Lobello and setting a precedent for similar disputes in sports arbitration.