The case involves professional cyclist Patrik Sinkewitz, who appealed against a provisional suspension imposed by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) following an adverse analytical finding for recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) in his doping test. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reviewed the matter de novo, meaning it reconsidered the case entirely, irrespective of any procedural issues in prior proceedings. The panel emphasized that a provisional suspension under the UCI Anti-Doping Rules should only be lifted if the rider demonstrates that the violation has no reasonable prospect of being upheld, proves no fault or negligence, or if the B sample analysis does not confirm the A sample findings. Sinkewitz tested positive for rhGH during the GP Lugano event in February 2011, and both the A and B samples confirmed the adverse finding.
Sinkewitz contested the suspension, arguing procedural flaws and questioning the reliability of the testing method. He sought extensive documentation, including raw data and quality control records, to challenge the findings. His expert, Prof. Santo Davide Ferrara, criticized the testing methodology, but the CAS panel upheld the provisional suspension, ruling that Sinkewitz failed to meet the high threshold required for lifting it. The panel found that merely casting doubt on the reliability of the test results was insufficient to overturn the suspension. The decision reinforced the principle that provisional suspensions serve as a protective measure pending a full hearing, and only compelling evidence justifying their removal can lead to their revocation.
The case highlights the complexities of anti-doping regulations, the burden of proof in provisional suspensions, and the role of expert testimony in such disputes. The panel noted that the differences in values between the A and B sample analyses were not significant enough to impact the adverse finding, and a second opinion confirmed the results. The panel underscored that its decision did not imply Sinkewitz had committed a violation, as that determination would be made by the appropriate disciplinary body. However, since the athlete failed to meet the stringent criteria under the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, the provisional suspension remained in place.
The appeal was dismissed, but the panel clarified that this ruling was procedural and did not prejudge the final outcome of the case. The decision reflects a narrow interpretation of the conditions for lifting a provisional suspension, emphasizing the need for clear evidence that the violation lacks reasonable prospects of confirmation. The final decision on the merits of the case remains with the appropriate hearing or arbitration body. The case underscores the strict interpretation of anti-doping regulations and the high burden on athletes to challenge provisional suspensions effectively.