The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on July 27, 2009, in the case between the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and Monika Schachl, along with the Austrian Cycling Federation (ÖRV). The case centered on Schachl's failure to submit to a post-race doping test after the 2008 Sparkassen Giro race. The panel, composed of legal and sports experts, addressed key issues such as the interpretation of anti-doping rules, the burden of proof, and the defenses available to athletes. The UCI argued that Schachl violated anti-doping rules by not complying with sample collection, while Schachl claimed she was unaware of the requirement due to her coach's oversight. The panel clarified that the UCI bears the burden of proving an athlete's failure to comply with testing procedures but does not need to prove the absence of a compelling justification, which is the athlete's responsibility to establish.
The case revealed procedural challenges, including miscommunication and logistical issues during the race. Schachl, selected as a reserve rider for testing, failed to report to the doping control station within the required time. The anti-doping inspector, Ingo Rees, cited reasons such as the absence of a chaperone and insufficient testing materials for refusing to administer the test when Schachl later returned. The panel emphasized that athletes cannot delegate their responsibilities to coaches or support personnel and must ensure compliance with anti-doping rules. Schachl's defense relied on her coach's incorrect information about testing notifications, but the panel found this insufficient to absolve her of responsibility.
The panel distinguished between two defenses: "compelling justification," which completely exonerates the athlete, and "no significant fault or negligence," which reduces sanctions. While Schachl did not meet the threshold for a compelling justification, the panel acknowledged mitigating factors, including confusing and contradictory UCI rules and poor communication from race organizers. These issues contributed to the panel's decision to reduce Schachl's ineligibility period from two years to one, starting retrospectively from August 27, 2008. The panel also ruled on the disqualification of Schachl's results, mandating the disqualification of her results from the Sparkassen Giro but preserving her results from the Beijing 2008 Olympics, as there was no evidence of performance-enhancing substance use.
The decision underscored the strict liability principle in anti-doping cases, holding athletes accountable for compliance while recognizing organizational shortcomings. The panel criticized the UCI for ineffective rules and communication, recommending improvements to prevent similar issues. The CAS ultimately upheld the UCI's appeal in part, declaring Schachl ineligible for one year and disqualifying specific results, while rejecting other relief requests. The ruling highlighted the balance between enforcing anti-doping regulations and ensuring fairness in cases where systemic flaws contribute to violations.