The case involves Jessica Kürten, an Irish show jumping rider, who faced doping allegations after her horse, Castle Forbes Maike, tested positive for the prohibited substance Etoricoxib during an international equestrian event in La Baule, France, in May 2007. The Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) conducted the initial analysis, and despite Kürten's request for a B-sample analysis in a WADA-accredited laboratory, the FEI insisted on using one of its approved laboratories, confirming the presence of the banned substance. Kürten contested the findings, citing procedural flaws in sample handling, laboratory choice, and analysis methodology. The FEI Tribunal rejected her arguments and imposed sanctions, including disqualification, a two-month suspension, a fine, and legal costs. Kürten appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), challenging the proportionality of the sanctions and procedural fairness.
The CAS panel addressed several legal issues, affirming that while international federations like the FEI must align their anti-doping rules with the WADA Code, they retain discretion in implementing specific procedures, including laboratory selection and testing protocols. The panel ruled that Kürten’s right to be heard was not violated, as she was informed about the limitations on her expert’s participation in the B-sample analysis and had the opportunity to appoint a qualified witness. Regarding proportionality, the CAS upheld the sanctions, finding them appropriate given the substance's nature, Kürten’s professional status, and the event's level. The panel emphasized the balance between enforcing anti-doping regulations and safeguarding athletes' rights, reinforcing the autonomy of federations within the WADA framework.
Kürten further argued that the laboratory's testing methods were scientifically invalid, particularly the absence of a third characteristic ion to confirm Etoricoxib’s presence. She also claimed her defense rights were violated as her expert was barred from observing the full analysis process. The FEI maintained that accredited laboratories have discretion in setting witness requirements and that their findings were valid under anti-doping protocols. The CAS found no procedural irregularities, upholding the FEI Tribunal’s decision and dismissing Kürten’s appeal. The ruling highlighted the importance of clear communication and adherence to established protocols in doping cases, particularly those involving animal athletes.
The case also touched on jurisdictional and procedural aspects, such as the FEI’s requirement for confidentiality agreements to protect laboratory standards and the logistical challenges of sample analysis. The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction over the appeal, citing FEI statutes and anti-doping rules. The panel concluded that the FEI fulfilled its obligations in maintaining a robust anti-doping system while respecting athletes' rights and horse welfare. Ultimately, the CAS upheld the two-month suspension and other sanctions, rejecting Kürten’s requests for a reduced penalty, damages, or further expert review. The stay of suspension, extended due to scheduling delays, ended in December 2008. The case underscores the complexities of anti-doping enforcement and the necessity of substantive evidence to challenge violations. The CAS’s decision reinforced the integrity of the anti-doping framework and the proportionality of the sanctions imposed.