The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a case involving cyclist Alexander Kolobnev, who tested positive for hydrochlorothiazide (HCT), a prohibited substance, during the 2011 Tour de France. The case centered on whether Kolobnev could prove the substance entered his system unintentionally and without intent to enhance performance. The Russian Cycling Federation (RCF) initially imposed a reprimand, disqualification of his Tour de France results, and a fine of CHF 1,500, citing no intent to dope. The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) appealed, arguing for stricter penalties, including a two-year suspension and a higher fine.
The CAS panel upheld the RCF's decision, emphasizing that Kolobnev had demonstrated how HCT entered his body—through a contaminated dietary supplement—and proved he lacked intent to enhance performance. The panel noted Kolobnev's clean record, medical justification for using the supplement, and reliance on a reputable source. While acknowledging he could have taken additional precautions, the panel deemed his fault minimal, justifying only a reprimand. The decision highlighted the principle of "tempus regit actum," meaning the rules in effect at the time of the violation applied, preventing retroactive harsher penalties.
Regarding sanctions, the panel confirmed the disqualification of Kolobnev's results from the specific Tour de France stage but rejected broader penalties. It also upheld the CHF 1,500 fine, ruling that newer, stricter financial sanctions could not be applied retroactively. However, Kolobnev and the RCF were ordered to reimburse the UCI for costs related to the case, including result management and sample analysis.
The case underscored the nuanced application of anti-doping rules, particularly for specified substances like HCT, where intent plays a critical role in determining sanctions. The panel's decision balanced strict liability with fairness, considering Kolobnev's circumstances and the absence of intent to cheat. Ultimately, the CAS dismissed the UCI's appeal for harsher penalties, affirming the RCF's original ruling as proportionate and well-reasoned. The outcome reinforced the importance of context in anti-doping adjudication, ensuring penalties align with the athlete's level of fault and the specifics of each case.