The case revolves around professional cyclist Ariel Maximiliano Richeze, who tested positive for the banned substance 3’HydroxyStanozolol, a metabolite of Stanozolol, during an anti-doping test conducted by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) on April 11, 2008, at the Circuit Cycliste de la Sarthe in France. Richeze argued that the substance entered his system unintentionally through contaminated dietary supplements, "Nitropump-NOS" and "BCAA Plus 1000," which did not list Stanozolol as an ingredient. Laboratory analyses confirmed the presence of Stanozolol in these supplements. The Union Ciclista Republica Argentina (UCRA) initially ruled in Richeze’s favor, concluding that the contamination was unintentional and that he could not be held negligent since the supplements were legally sold and their labels did not disclose the banned substance. However, the UCI appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), contending that Richeze bore responsibility for the substances in his body and had shown significant negligence by not thoroughly verifying the supplements' contents.
The CAS upheld the UCI’s appeal, emphasizing the principle of strict liability in anti-doping rules, which holds athletes accountable for any prohibited substances found in their bodies regardless of intent. While Richeze’s claim of contamination was credible, the tribunal found his negligence significant because he failed to conduct adequate checks on the supplements before consumption. The CAS ruled that the standard two-year suspension for doping violations was appropriate, rejecting arguments for a reduced penalty. The suspension period was set to begin on the date Richeze was provisionally suspended by his team, May 10, 2008, even though he was later temporarily reinstated. The tribunal acknowledged that his career had been impacted during the provisional suspension but maintained that the full suspension was warranted under anti-doping regulations.
The case highlights the risks associated with dietary supplements and the need for athletes to exercise extreme caution, even with legally sold products. The decision underscores that negligence in verifying supplement contents can lead to severe penalties, reinforcing the stringent standards imposed by anti-doping authorities. The CAS also addressed procedural matters, confirming its jurisdiction under UCI regulations and the parties' agreement. It found the UCI’s appeal admissible, as it was filed within the required timeframe after receiving the full case file from the UCRA. The applicable law was determined to be the UCI’s Anti-Doping Rules (RAD), as Richeze, as a licensed athlete, was bound by its rules.
The final ruling by the CAS upheld the UCI’s appeal, overturned the UCRA’s initial decision, and imposed a two-year suspension on Richeze effective May 10, 2008. His results from the Sarthe race were annulled, along with those from May 10 to October 23, 2008. The decision reflects a balance between enforcing anti-doping rules and considering the athlete’s circumstances, while reaffirming the strict liability principle in anti-doping cases. The case serves as a cautionary tale for athletes about the importance of vigilance and the consequences of failing to adhere to anti-doping protocols.