The case of Giuseppe Gibilisco, an Italian pole vaulter, revolved around allegations of attempting to use prohibited substances, leading to a two-year suspension by the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI). The matter was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) after Gibilisco appealed the decision. The central issue was whether the evidence demonstrated an "attempt to use" banned substances under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), which requires proof of intent. The investigation began in 2004 as part of a criminal probe called "Oil for Drugs," targeting athletes linked to Dr. Carlo Santuccione, who had a history of involvement in doping. Wiretapped conversations between Gibilisco and the doctor discussed substances like Testovis (containing testosterone) and growth hormone (IG). During a search of Gibilisco’s home, authorities found a personal agenda with the letters "A-P-G," which investigators linked to prohibited substances, though Gibilisco claimed these referred to training programs.
The Italian Athletics Federation (FIDAL) initially imposed a two-year ban, citing contradictions in his statements and his continued association with the doctor. However, FIDAL’s appeals commission later overturned the ban, finding insufficient evidence of intent to use prohibited substances. CONI appealed this reversal, and the Giudice di Ultima Instanza in Materia di Doping (GUI) reinstated the two-year sanction, emphasizing that sports disciplinary rules under the WADC are independent of criminal law. The GUI ruled that Gibilisco’s actions met the WADC definition of "attempted use," citing his visits to the doctor, recorded conversations, and ambiguous notes in his agenda.
Gibilisco then appealed to the CAS, which reviewed the case de novo. The CAS panel confirmed its jurisdiction and applied Italian law, as both parties were domiciled in Italy. The burden of proof rested on CONI to establish the violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel, a standard higher than balance of probability but lower than beyond reasonable doubt. The Panel examined the evidence, including Gibilisco’s visits to the doctor and the May 10, 2004, conversation about prohibited substances, but found no direct evidence that the doctor prescribed banned substances to Gibilisco. The transcript of the conversation did not conclusively prove an attempt to use prohibited substances.
Ultimately, the CAS ruled that while Gibilisco’s behavior was suspicious, it did not meet the WADC’s definition of an "attempt" to use prohibited substances. The Panel emphasized the importance of intent and substantial steps in proving such violations and concluded that CONI failed to provide sufficient evidence. The CAS acquitted Gibilisco of the two-year ineligibility sanction, setting aside CONI’s decision. The Panel also rejected a subsidiary motion suggesting Gibilisco might be guilty of associating with a suspended medical professional, deeming it inadmissible as it was not part of the original proceedings. The ruling left it to Italian authorities to decide whether to pursue disciplinary action for this association. The case underscores the high standard of proof required to establish an anti-doping violation, particularly when intent and substantial steps toward doping must be demonstrated.