The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a decision on February 18, 2011, in a doping case involving the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), a cyclist referred to as A., and the French Cycling Federation (FFC). The case stemmed from A.'s positive test for norfenfluramine, a prohibited stimulant, during the 2009 Circuit Franco-Belge race. The UCI appealed to CAS, seeking financial sanctions and reimbursement of doping control costs, while A. counterclaimed to overturn his two-year suspension and disqualification imposed by the FFC. The CAS panel confirmed the applicability of the 2009 UCI Anti-Doping Rules (RAD), as they were in force at the time of the violation, and emphasized that participation in races implies acceptance of these rules. The panel classified A.'s request to annul his suspension as a counterclaim, which was deemed inadmissible under the 2010 CAS Code, as it conflicted with procedural rules prioritizing timely appeals.
The cyclist argued that the norfenfluramine entered his system unintentionally through his mother’s prescribed medication, Mediator, and sought to introduce new evidence to support his claim. However, the panel found that A. had not demonstrated due diligence in investigating the source of the substance, as he failed to question his parents about their medications until six months after the positive test. The panel upheld the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, stressing the high standard of care expected from athletes to avoid inadvertent violations.
Regarding financial penalties, the UCI sought a fine based on 70% of A.'s annual net income (€21,000), as per Article 326 of the RAD, but acknowledged it could be reduced to €10,500 due to financial hardship. The panel adjusted the fine to €10,500, considering A.'s young age, limited income, and personal circumstances, while also ordering him to pay CHF 1,000 for anti-doping result management and €400 for the B-sample analysis. The decision balanced the enforcement of anti-doping rules with principles of proportionality and fairness under Swiss law.
The CAS partially upheld the UCI’s appeal, confirming the disciplinary sanctions and financial penalties while dismissing A.'s counterclaim. The ruling reinforced the strict liability framework in anti-doping cases and highlighted the importance of procedural adherence and athlete vigilance. The case underscores the CAS's role in resolving disputes between sports governing bodies and athletes, ensuring compliance with regulations while safeguarding equitable treatment. The final decision modified the FFC’s earlier ruling and imposed the adjusted financial penalties on the cyclist.