The case involves a doping dispute in cycling concerning cyclist M., who tested positive for nandrolone metabolites during the "Settimana Bergamasca" event in April 1998. The initial analysis of M.'s A-sample revealed a concentration of approximately 6 ng/ml of Norandrosterone, a metabolite of nandrolone, exceeding the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) threshold of 2 ng/ml. The B-sample confirmed the presence of Norandrosterone at 5 ng/ml, along with Noretiocholanolone. The UCI's Antidoping Commission notified the Federazione Ciclistica Italiana (FCI), which imposed a six-month suspension and a fine of CHF 2,000 on M. However, the suspension period was ambiguously defined, prompting appeals from both M. and the UCI.
M. contested the findings, citing scientific uncertainty about endogenous nandrolone production, particularly for concentrations between 2 and 5 ng/ml. He appealed to the FCI's internal body and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking annulment of the sanction. The UCI, dissatisfied with the penalty's leniency, also appealed to the CAS, demanding a stricter suspension and higher fine. The CAS acknowledged the scientific debate, noting that concentrations below 2 ng/ml were not considered doping, while levels between 2 and 5 ng/ml required further scrutiny. Concentrations above 5 ng/ml were deemed highly unlikely to be endogenous, thus sufficient to establish a doping offense. The CAS emphasized that sanctions must be "effective," meaning they should impact the athlete's active competition period.
To address the scientific uncertainty, the CAS appointed Dr. Laurent Rivier as an expert witness, despite objections from M.'s counsel regarding impartiality. Dr. Rivier supported the UCI's position that nandrolone metabolites above 5 ng/ml indicated exogenous intake. The CAS upheld the doping violation but adjusted the suspension to ensure it was served during M.'s active season, reinforcing the principle that penalties must have a meaningful competitive impact.
The case also involved procedural disputes, including M.'s challenge to the CAS's jurisdiction, arguing he had not exhausted all FCI remedies. The CAS affirmed its jurisdiction, citing Article 81 of the Anti-Doping Examination Regulations (AER) and noting both parties had confirmed its competence by signing the Order of Procedure. The CAS examined whether Italian law required an internal FCI appeal before arbitration, concluding it did not. The UCI's appeal was filed within the stipulated one-month period, and both parties met submission deadlines.
On the substantive issue, the CAS confirmed M.'s positive test for norandrosterone, with the B-sample corroborating the A-sample results. M. failed to provide a plausible explanation for the high metabolite levels, leading the CAS to rule in favor of a doping violation. The Panel partially agreed with the FCI's decision but found the initial suspension ineffective as it largely fell during a "dead period" of inactivity. The Panel adjusted the suspension to nine months, starting on 14 July 1998, with probation granted for the final two months and three weeks due to M.'s youth and first-time offense. The fine of CHF 2,000 and disqualification from the event were upheld.
The case highlights the challenges in doping adjudication, particularly regarding endogenous substances, and underscores the importance of clear scientific thresholds and effective sanctions. The CAS's decision balanced strict anti-doping enforcement with fairness, ensuring penalties were meaningful while offering rehabilitation opportunities for young athletes. The ruling also reaffirmed the CAS's authority in resolving doping disputes, even amid procedural objections.