The case TAS 2009/A/2014 involves the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against the Royal Belgian Cycling League (RLVB) and cyclist Iljo Keisse, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on July 6, 2010. The arbitration panel, comprising Dirk-Reiner Martens, Massimo Coccia, and Ann Van de Velde, addressed doping allegations against Keisse, who tested positive for cathine, chlorothiazide, hydrochlorothiazide, and aminochlorobenzenebisulphonamide during the "Six Days of Ghent" competition in November 2008. The CAS examined multiple legal and procedural issues, including jurisdiction, the priority of Swiss arbitration tribunals, evidence submission responsibilities, procedural language, and the athlete's fault or negligence.
The CAS affirmed its jurisdiction based on Keisse's acceptance of Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) rules and CAS authority when signing his license. It emphasized that international federations like the UCI must oversee national federation decisions to prevent lenient sanctions that could distort international competitions. The Swiss Private International Law Act (LDIP) was cited to confirm the priority of Swiss arbitration tribunals, with limited exceptions for suspension under serious grounds. The CAS also upheld the principle that parties are responsible for submitting all relevant evidence and cannot later complain about incomplete records. Regarding procedural language, the CAS ruled that English or French would be used if parties did not agree, based on their understanding and the case's circumstances.
On the substantive doping issues, the CAS clarified that for threshold substances like cathine, the B-sample analysis only needs to confirm the presence detected in the A-sample, not the exact concentration. The quantitative analysis was deemed irrelevant. The CAS reiterated its strict stance on athlete liability, requiring them to demonstrate extreme caution to avoid fault or negligence. In cases involving contaminated supplements, athletes must prove they took all necessary precautions, such as researching the product, to qualify for a reduced sanction. Since Keisse failed to provide sufficient evidence of such precautions, no reduction in his suspension was justified.
Keisse tested positive for cathine (above the permitted threshold) and other prohibited substances during the 2008 competition. His team suspended him immediately, and subsequent B-sample analysis confirmed the findings. The RLVB Disciplinary Commission initially dismissed the case, but WADA appealed to the CAS, which upheld the anti-doping violation. The CAS decision underscores the strict liability principle in doping cases and the high burden on athletes to prove their innocence or lack of negligence. The ruling reinforces the authority of international sports bodies in maintaining uniform anti-doping standards and the limited scope for national federations or athletes to deviate from these rules.
Keisse contested CAS's jurisdiction, citing a 2009 Brussels court ruling that deemed CAS appeal procedures incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, Swiss law (Article 186(1bis) of the LDIP) prioritizes arbitral tribunals over parallel state court proceedings, unless serious reasons warrant suspension. The CAS concluded that Keisse’s case did not meet the legal criteria for suspending the arbitration, affirming its authority to proceed. The UCI’s regulations, including its anti-doping rules, are binding and applicable, ensuring uniformity and compliance with international standards.
The CAS dismissed Keisse's procedural objections, including claims about incomplete evidence and language preferences, finding no violation of his defense rights. It also rejected his argument that WADA lacked standing to appeal, citing Article 330(f) of the RAD, which explicitly grants WADA the right to appeal decisions. On the merits, the CAS confirmed Keisse's two-year suspension, starting from the date of the CAS ruling, with credit given for the provisional suspension period. Only the results from the "Six Days of Ghent" were annulled, while other claims were dismissed. The decision underscores the strict application of anti-doping rules while ensuring fairness in considering prior provisional suspensions.
The case serves as a precedent for handling similar disputes in international sports arbitration, highlighting the strict liability principle and the high standard of care expected from athletes regarding supplements. The ruling aligns with established jurisprudence from the CAS, which consistently rejects leniency for athletes using contaminated supplements unless they demonstrate extraordinary precautions. The suspension was confirmed without extension, as no aggravating factors were present. The decision reaffirms the binding nature of arbitration agreements in sports governance and the importance