The case involves an appeal against a decision by the Judicial Committee of the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) regarding the disqualification of a horse, W., from an equestrian event after testing positive for the prohibited substance phenylbutazone (Bute). The appellant, P., was fined CHF 2,500 and charged CHF 5,000 in costs. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) had jurisdiction over the matter, and the parties agreed to arbitration. The appellant argued that the FEI failed to provide all relevant information, which would have influenced the decision to request a confirmatory analysis of the 'B' sample. FEI rules require the person responsible for the horse to disclose any treatment with prohibited substances, even if legitimate, and entitle them to request a confirmatory analysis. If the analysis does not confirm the presence of the substance, the case must be dropped. The panel found that the appellant was not properly informed of a negative blood test result, which likely would have prompted a request for a confirmatory analysis. While the panel rejected claims of procedural flaws or bad faith by the FEI, it acknowledged that the appellant was deprived of the opportunity to make an informed choice due to the FEI's omission. The panel emphasized the importance of transparency and proper procedure, noting that the appellant could not be held to have waived the right to a confirmatory analysis because the FEI failed to disclose critical information.
Further procedural issues included the FEI's listing of Dr. Lange as both Veterinary Delegate and Treating Veterinarian, though it was unclear if he acted in both roles. The appellant, Ms. Lorenz, was responsible for disclosing the horse's treatment with Bute, especially since Dr. Griesbacher had advised against the horse competing. The panel stressed the obligation to inform the Veterinary Delegate of any treatments, aligning with anti-doping efforts and fair play principles. Other concerns included the lack of stable security, though no evidence suggested sample tampering, and the compromise of sample anonymity due to the Medical Control Form identifying the horse and its treatment. While minor procedural deviations do not invalidate test results if the chain of custody and testing integrity are confirmed, the panel highlighted the FEI's incomplete reporting of test results. The appellant was initially informed only of the positive urine test for Bute, while a contemporaneous negative blood test was omitted. This omission deprived her of the opportunity to request a confirmatory analysis. Additionally, the samples were destroyed within a year, violating FEI rules requiring preservation until the appeal process concluded, which prevented a confirmatory analysis.
The panel concluded that relying solely on the urine test was unfair, as FEI procedures mandate confirmation through a second sample if requested. The appellant could not have waived her right to a confirmatory analysis because she was not fully informed of the test results. The panel found the FEI's failure to disclose the blood test and the premature destruction of samples undermined the fairness of the process. The case underscores the importance of transparency and adherence to procedural safeguards in anti-doping regulations. The panel acknowledged that the appellant did not intend to gain an advantage from administering Bute, as it was for therapeutic purposes, but she took the risk that traces might remain during the event. The imposed penalty was deemed reasonable under FEI rules, and the Judicial Committee's criticism of the appellant for disregarding veterinary advice and concealing the treatment was endorsed. However, the appeal was allowed due to procedural shortcomings, and the CAS ruled in favor of the appellant, canceling the Judicial Committee's decision. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness while maintaining that those who take risks must accept the consequences.