The case revolves around a doping dispute involving Danish cyclist S., the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), the Danish Cycling Union (DCU), and the Danish National Olympic Committee (NOC). The conflict arose from differing interpretations and applications of anti-doping regulations between the UCI, as the international governing body for cycling, and the Danish NOC. S. tested positive for elevated testosterone/epitestosterone (T/E) ratios during the 1997 Tour of Denmark, with initial results showing ratios of 8.2 and 7.9 in the A and B samples, respectively, exceeding the UCI's permissible limit of 6. Endocrinological tests confirmed the results were not due to natural causes but indicated the presence of prohibited substances, including dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA).
The UCI, under its Anti-Doping Examination Regulations (AER), instructed the DCU to proceed with disciplinary actions. However, the Danish NOC asserted jurisdiction, applying its own rules and initially imposing a two-year suspension, later reduced to nine months by its appeals commission. The UCI contested this decision, arguing that its regulations should take precedence over national rules, as stipulated by the Olympic Charter, which mandates compliance with international federation rules. The UCI appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), emphasizing procedural missteps and the Danish NOC's failure to adhere to the AER.
The CAS ruled that the Danish NOC erred in not applying the UCI's AER, despite the Danish NOC's claim of exclusive jurisdiction. The panel acknowledged the UCI's good faith but criticized its lack of proactive intervention during proceedings. The CAS upheld the doping violation, dismissing S.'s claims of sample tampering and natural fluctuations, and modified the sanction to a nine-month suspension retroactive to December 1997, along with a fine. The case highlighted jurisdictional tensions between international and national sports bodies, underscoring the need for harmonized anti-doping enforcement to ensure fairness and consistency in sports governance. The decision reinforced the primacy of international federation rules in doping cases and the role of CAS in resolving such disputes.