The case involves Francesco De Bonis, a professional cyclist, who appealed against a decision by the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) and the International Cycling Union (UCI) regarding an alleged anti-doping rule violation based on his Athlete Biological Passport (ABP). The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel addressed several legal and procedural issues, confirming its jurisdiction under Swiss law and the arbitrability of the dispute. The panel emphasized its authority to independently evaluate expert opinions and upheld the ABP as a legitimate scientific method for detecting doping violations, provided it adheres to reliability standards under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC).
De Bonis was accused of using a prohibited method to enhance oxygen transfer, supported by irregularities in his ABP data and later corroborated by an adverse analytical finding for Recombinant Erythropoietin (CERA) during the Giro d’Italia in 2009. He contested the charges, citing discrepancies in sample identification and the absence of a B-sample for counter-analysis. UCI acknowledged an administrative error but maintained the integrity of the chain of custody. The panel upheld the ABP’s validity as evidence and confirmed the anti-doping violation, reinforcing the principle that anti-doping organizations must retain control over testing procedures to prevent manipulation.
The case began when De Bonis was charged by UPA-CONI for violating anti-doping rules, leading to a two-year ineligibility period and financial penalties. He appealed to CAS, which granted UCI’s participation in the proceedings. The panel assessed its jurisdiction, procedural complexities, and the admissibility of evidence, including the ABP. It dismissed De Bonis’s procedural objections, affirming the ABP’s reliability as a three-step process involving hemoglobin, reticulocytes percentage, and the "off-score" to detect abnormalities indicative of doping.
The panel rejected De Bonis’s explanations for abnormal values, such as medical conditions or iron therapy, due to lack of contemporaneous reporting and inconsistencies with other sample values. It also dismissed concerns about sample degradation and chain of custody, finding no evidence of procedural lapses. De Bonis’s request for a new ABP based on private tests was denied, as these lacked adherence to WADA standards. The panel upheld the CERA test results, despite De Bonis’s arguments about consent and laboratory practices, concluding they provided additional evidence of the violation.
Ultimately, the panel found De Bonis guilty of using a prohibited method to enhance oxygen transfer and upheld the two-year ineligibility period, financial penalties, and cost restitution. The CAS dismissed the appeal, affirming the original decision and sanctions. The case highlights the balance between scientific advancements in doping detection and the protection of athletes’ rights within established anti-doping regulations.