The case revolves around Denis Lynch, a professional show jumping rider from Ireland, who participated in the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games with his horse Lantina 3. During the competition, the horse tested positive for capsaicin, a prohibited substance under the FEI Equine Anti-Doping and Medication Control Rules (EADMCR). Capsaicin, derived from chili peppers, can desensitize or hypersensitize a horse's limbs, potentially enhancing performance, which is classified as doping. The initial test was conducted by the Hong Kong Jockey Club Racing Laboratory, and the positive result led to a provisional suspension of Lynch by the FEI. Lynch was notified of the adverse analytical finding and given the opportunity to request a B-sample analysis and a preliminary hearing. The B-sample confirmed the presence of capsaicin, and Lynch opted for a preliminary hearing but did not attend the B-sample opening.
Lynch admitted to using a product called Equi-Block DT, which contained capsaicin, claiming it was a legal care product to warm up the horse's muscles. He argued that the substance did not have a therapeutic effect and should not be classified as prohibited. However, the FEI upheld the provisional suspension, and Lynch appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS examined whether it had jurisdiction to review the provisional suspension, concluding that its scope was limited to assessing whether the FEI followed proper legal and procedural grounds. The CAS found no violations in the FEI's process, noting the suspension was justified to ensure fair competition and was not excessively prejudicial, as it would be credited against any final sanction. The CAS also determined that no breach of Swiss procedural or material "ordre public" (public policy) occurred, meaning it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the suspension on those grounds.
Lynch further contested the suspension, arguing it violated principles of proportionality, personal rights, and economic liberty. He claimed the FEI's testing methods were flawed and less stringent than World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) standards. The CAS Panel dismissed these arguments, finding no evidence of procedural violations under Article 7.2 of the EADMCR. The Panel emphasized that provisional suspensions are necessary to maintain competition integrity and are typically shorter than final sanctions. It also ruled that Swiss civil procedural law applied to procedural deadlines, considering a local holiday in Lausanne extended the filing period.
The FEI Tribunal later issued a final decision imposing a three-month suspension, a fine, and a contribution to costs. The CAS upheld the provisional suspension, dismissing Lynch's appeal and affirming the FEI's authority to enforce anti-doping regulations. The case highlights the strict enforcement of anti-doping rules in equestrian sports and the limited scope of CAS review in provisional suspension appeals unless procedural or public policy violations are evident. It also underscores the tension between athletes' rights and regulatory enforcement, as well as the importance of clarity in anti-doping regulations to avoid disputes. The decision reaffirms the FEI's ability to impose suspensions to maintain fair competition while ensuring due process for athletes.