The case revolves around an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the Danish Doping Board concerning cyclist Philipp Nielsen, who tested positive for clenbuterol during the Vuelta Mexico in April 2010. The Danish Doping Board lifted Nielsen's provisional suspension and imposed no further sanctions, concluding he bore no fault or negligence, attributing the positive test to contaminated meat consumed at the official race hotel. WADA challenged this decision, arguing procedural and substantive issues, including the timeliness of its appeal and the interpretation of the "case file" under the UCI Anti-Doping Rules (UCI-ADR).
A key procedural dispute was whether WADA's appeal was filed within the required one-month deadline under Article 334 of the UCI-ADR. WADA contended the deadline began on May 18, 2011, when it received the complete case file, while the Respondents (the Danish Doping Board and Nielsen) argued WADA had all necessary documents by March 21, 2011, making the appeal late. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel, composed of Dirk-Reiner Martens, Hans Nater, and Lars Halgreen, ruled that the case file must be provided by the national hearing body after its decision is notified to WADA, and earlier transmissions by third parties like the UCI did not trigger the deadline unless the competent body confirmed the file's completeness. The panel found WADA's appeal admissible, as it was filed within the deadline based on the May 18 receipt date.
On the merits, WADA sought to overturn the Danish Doping Board's decision, requesting a four-year ineligibility period for Nielsen and disqualification of his results from April 25, 2011. The Respondents argued the appeal was inadmissible due to late filing and requested dismissal or, alternatively, a one-year ineligibility period if the decision was overturned. The panel confirmed its jurisdiction under Article R47 of the CAS Code and Danish Anti-Doping rules, applying the UCI-ADR and Swiss law. It issued a partial award on admissibility, reserving other issues for a final award.
The panel rejected the Respondents' argument that WADA had all documents by February 10, 2011, stating these did not constitute a "case file" under Article 334 UCI-ADR, which only applies to post-decision transmissions. It also ruled that documents received from the UCI on April 8, 2011, did not qualify as the full case file, as they were not sent by the Danish Doping Board. The panel emphasized that the time limit only begins once the competent body confirms the file's completeness, which did not occur until May 18, 2011. Consequently, WADA's June 8, 2011, appeal was deemed timely.
The case underscores the importance of clear procedural rules in anti-doping enforcement, particularly regarding document transmission and appeal deadlines. It highlights the balance between strict liability for athletes and recognizing unintentional violations due to contaminated substances. The panel's ruling ensures procedural fairness while preserving WADA's ability to challenge decisions it deems insufficient under the World Anti-Doping Code. The final award will address remaining issues, including sanctions and costs.