The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on the case of Italian cyclist Pietro Caucchioli, who was accused of blood doping based on irregularities detected through the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP). The ABP, an electronic record of an athlete’s blood test results analyzed using statistical software, revealed anomalies in 13 of Caucchioli’s blood samples collected between April 2008 and May 2009. Experts concluded these irregularities could only be explained by prohibited methods to enhance oxygen transfer, violating the International Cycling Union’s (UCI) anti-doping regulations. The CAS panel upheld the ABP as a reliable indirect method for detecting doping, emphasizing that it did not introduce new prohibitions but rather provided a new means of identifying already banned practices. The panel dismissed concerns about the impartiality of the experts evaluating the ABP, noting their rigorous and anonymous review process, and rejected claims of procedural or scientific flaws in the ABP’s application.
Caucchioli argued that his samples were collected before the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) issued ABP guidelines in December 2009, but the panel found this irrelevant, as the UCI had already provided sufficient information about the ABP program. The CAS also rejected his claim that his blood values fell within standard limits, clarifying that the ABP uses individualized thresholds validated by statistical analysis and expert consensus. Testimony from another cyclist, Bernard Kohl, implicating Caucchioli in blood doping, was deemed unnecessary, as the ABP evidence alone was sufficient to establish the violation. The CAS confirmed the decision of the Italian National Anti-Doping Tribunal (TNA), which had found Caucchioli guilty of blood doping and imposed a two-year suspension starting from June 18, 2009. However, the panel rejected the UCI’s request to annul all of Caucchioli’s results post-violation.
The ruling reinforced the ABP’s validity as a critical tool in anti-doping efforts, underscoring that athletes are bound by anti-doping rules once they consent to compete. It highlighted the balance between leveraging scientific advancements for fair competition and ensuring procedural safeguards for athletes. The case demonstrated the legal and scientific complexities of anti-doping enforcement, particularly the use of longitudinal profiling like the ABP to detect doping. Ultimately, the CAS decision affirmed the authority of anti-doping organizations to use advanced detection methods, provided the underlying conduct was prohibited at the time of the violation and the evidence met established standards. The ruling set a precedent for the ABP’s role in upholding integrity in sports.