The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a case involving a horse rider, F., and the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) concerning a doping violation. The dispute arose when F.'s horse tested positive for cotinine, a nicotine metabolite, during a 1994 show jumping competition. The FEI's Judicial Committee disqualified F. and his horse, forfeited their prizes, and imposed a CHF 1,000 fine for procedural costs. F. appealed, arguing he was not responsible for the substance's presence and blamed inadequate event surveillance. The CAS upheld the FEI's decision, emphasizing strict liability under FEI regulations, which mandates automatic disqualification upon detecting a prohibited substance, regardless of intent or performance impact. The ruling clarified that disqualification is not punitive but ensures fairness among competitors. However, since F. was not found guilty of intentional doping, the procedural costs fine was overturned.
F. contended that the FEI's decision was unfair and that poor event surveillance contributed to the incident. The CAS rejected these arguments, stating that while organizers must provide basic security, riders bear primary responsibility for preventing prohibited substances in their horses. The court also dismissed F.'s claim about reputational harm from the decision's publication, as disqualification was a regulatory measure, not a penalty. The case reinforced the FEI's strict anti-doping stance and the principle of objective liability in equestrian sports. The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction under FEI statutes and the correct application of regulations, highlighting the importance of rider vigilance in doping prevention.
The tribunal noted that the presence of a prohibited substance automatically triggered disqualification, irrespective of intent, to maintain fairness among competitors. It rejected F.'s appeal against disqualification but found the CHF 1,000 fine illogical, as it contradicted FEI regulations imposing costs only on those found guilty. The fine was annulled. Regarding publication, the tribunal allowed the decision to be published only as a tribunal-prepared summary to protect F.'s reputation. The final ruling upheld the disqualification and prize forfeiture but overturned the fine and restricted publication format. The case illustrates the balance between enforcing strict anti-doping measures and ensuring procedural fairness for athletes.