The case revolves around cyclist C., who was found guilty of a doping violation during the 1998 Tour of Trentino and Tour of Romandie. Doping tests revealed that C.'s Testosterone/Epitestosterone (T/E) ratios exceeded the permissible limit of 6, with results of 9.8 in the Tour of Trentino and 10.4, 7.0, and 8.1 in the Tour of Romandie. The UCI Antidoping Commission notified the Federazione Ciclistica Italiana (FCI) of the positive results and offered C. an endocrinological examination to determine if the elevated ratios were due to a natural condition. The examination, conducted by the Institut für Biochemie at the Deutsche Sportschule Köln, confirmed that the ratios were not natural, and the samples from the Tour de Romandie were deemed positive for steroid use. C. requested a counter-analysis of the B-samples, which also tested positive, leading the UCI to request disciplinary action.
The FCI's disciplinary body, the Commissione Disciplinare, imposed a six-month suspension and a fine of CHF 2,000 but failed to specify the suspension's start or end dates. The UCI appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the sanction was insufficient and requesting a longer suspension, disqualification from both events, an increased fine, and cost liability for C. C. cross-appealed, seeking to overturn the decision, reduce the suspension, and have it start earlier. The CAS panel, composed of Stephan Netzle, Olivier Carrard, and Luc Argand, upheld its jurisdiction under the UCI's Antidoping Examination Regulations (AER). The panel emphasized that endogenous steroids like testosterone are considered doping if the T/E ratio exceeds 6 unless proven otherwise and stressed that sanctions must be effective and not fall within a "dead period" when the athlete is inactive.
The Panel partially modified the FCI's decision, addressing procedural flaws in the Giro del Trentino case, such as delayed B-sample analysis and lack of notification to C., which led to disregarding those results. However, the Tour de Romandie samples confirmed doping, with no evidence of a natural cause. The Panel treated the multiple positive results as a single offense. Regarding sanctions, the Panel found the initial six-month suspension partially ineffective, as three months fell during a "dead period" when C. was not competing. To ensure the suspension covered six months of normal activity, it was extended to nine months, running from September 6, 1998, to June 5, 1999. The Panel also noted the need for harmonizing sanctions with other federations to avoid such issues.
C. argued that the suspension should start automatically on August 16, 1998, per Article 82 of the AER, but the Panel adjusted the start date to September 6, 1998, accounting for delays due to counter-analysis and examinations. The final decision disqualified C. from the Tour de Romandie, imposed a nine-month suspension, and upheld the CHF 2,000 fine, while canceling the disqualification from the Giro del Trentino. The ruling underscored the importance of effective sanctions in anti-doping efforts while ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to regulations. The case highlights the strict enforcement of anti-doping rules in cycling and the complexities of adjudicating such violations.