The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) case CAS 2010/A/2235 involved an appeal by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) against a decision by the National Anti-Doping Commission of the Olympic Committee of Slovenia (OCS). The case centered on whether a doping violation could be established using the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP), a method of longitudinal profiling to detect blood manipulation, rather than through traditional adverse analytical findings. The panel addressed key legal and procedural issues, clarifying that the burden of proof in anti-doping cases lies with the UCI, applying the standard of "comfortable satisfaction," which is stricter than the civil standard but less stringent than the criminal standard. The panel emphasized the need for careful evaluation of facts and expert evidence, affirming that it must apply existing rules as codified by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the UCI rather than speculate on potential improvements to the ABP system.
The case involved an athlete whose blood samples from April and August 2009 showed deviations exceeding a 99.9% probability threshold, prompting expert review. The athlete claimed medical issues, including stomach problems and blood loss, as explanations for abnormal hemoglobin levels. However, an expert panel concluded that the hematological profile strongly indicated the use of a prohibited oxygen-transfer enhancement method. The UCI proceeded with disciplinary action, but the Slovenian Federation’s National Anti-Doping Commission ruled in favor of the athlete, attributing the anomalies to health issues and training conditions. Dissatisfied, the UCI appealed to CAS, seeking a minimum three-year ban, disqualification of results, and financial penalties.
The CAS panel evaluated the evidence, including expert testimonies and laboratory results, to determine whether the abnormal blood profile indicated doping. It rejected claims that the experts acted as advocates for the UCI and emphasized the need to apply existing rules, including the ABP system approved by WADA. The panel dismissed the athlete’s explanations, such as gastric bleeding and stress, finding them insufficient to account for the abnormalities. It concluded that the abnormalities were consistent with blood manipulation, such as EPO use or blood transfusions, given the lack of plausible alternative explanations.
Regarding sanctions, the panel upheld the UCI’s position, imposing a two-year ineligibility period starting from January 20, 2011, and disqualifying the athlete’s results from April 19, 2009, to the end of September 2009. A fine of EUR 52,500 was imposed, reduced from EUR 105,000 by 50% due to the athlete’s financial situation and family circumstances. The panel rejected the athlete’s argument for leniency under the lex mitior principle, affirming that the UCI’s anti-doping rules took precedence. The decision underscored the importance of rigorous scientific analysis and adherence to anti-doping regulations in maintaining fair competition, highlighting the CAS’s role in ensuring procedural fairness and upholding the integrity of sports governance.
The case demonstrated the challenges of applying traditional anti-doping frameworks to emerging scientific methods like the ABP while reaffirming the importance of established legal standards. The panel’s decision provided clarity on the interpretation and application of anti-doping rules in cases involving longitudinal profiling, emphasizing the balance between enforcing regulations and safeguarding athletes’ rights. The final ruling dismissed all other motions, concluding the case with the specified sanctions and penalties.