The case revolves around Bernardo Alves, a Brazilian show jumping rider, who faced a provisional suspension from the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) after his horse, Chupa Chup, tested positive for capsaicin during the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Capsaicin, a prohibited substance under the FEI's Equine Anti-Doping and Medication Control Rules (EADMCR), was detected in the horse's system, leading to the suspension. Alves admitted to using Equi-Block DT, a product containing capsaicin, which he claimed was a care product rather than a performance-enhancing substance. He argued that the product was commonly used by riders and sold at major events, believing it was legal. The FEI, however, classified capsaicin as a prohibited substance due to its potential to hypersensitize a horse's limbs, thereby enhancing performance. The B-sample analysis confirmed the presence of capsaicin, and Alves did not contest the procedural fairness of the testing.
Alves appealed the provisional suspension to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), challenging the FEI's decisions and arguing that the suspension violated procedural fairness and his rights under Swiss law. He sought annulment of the suspension, an independent expert review of the testing methods, and coverage of legal costs. The FEI countered that CAS lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the provisional suspension was an interim measure and not a final ruling subject to appeal under Article 7.2 of the EADMCR. The FEI maintained that the suspension was justified by the positive test results and the likelihood of a final suspension, emphasizing that any harm to Alves was mitigated by the fact that the provisional suspension would count toward any final penalty.
The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Michael Geistlinger, Mr. Lars Halgreen, and Prof. Christoph Vedder, examined the jurisdictional scope of CAS in cases of provisional suspensions. It determined that CAS had exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals against provisional suspensions only if the appellant had exhausted all available legal remedies and met filing deadlines, and if there was an alleged violation of anti-doping rules, such as the absence of a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) or procedural errors in testing. In Alves' case, the panel found no such violations, as the FEI Investigating Body had confirmed no TUE was granted and no testing irregularities undermined the adverse finding. The panel also considered whether the provisional suspension violated Swiss procedural or material "ordre public" (public policy), concluding that the suspension, intended to ensure fair competition pending a final decision, did not cause substantial prejudice to Alves, as it was shorter than the potential final sanction and would be credited against it.
The CAS upheld the FEI's provisional suspension, emphasizing that the suspension was procedurally sound and did not infringe on Alves' rights under Swiss law. The decision reinforced the authority of international federations to impose provisional suspensions in doping cases to maintain the integrity of sports competitions. The case highlights the complexities of balancing athlete rights with the need for strict anti-doping measures, underscoring the importance of adhering to established testing and appeal procedures to ensure fairness and integrity in equestrian sports. The final outcome dismissed Alves' appeal and ordered him to bear the legal costs, reinforcing the FEI's procedural integrity and the necessity of provisional suspensions in doping cases.