The case involves an appeal by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) against a decision by the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) regarding cyclist Pasquale Muto, who was found guilty of two anti-doping violations involving ephedrine and recombinant erythropoietin (EPO) in separate tests conducted in March and April 2011. The UCI appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that CONI's handling of the case was incorrect. The CAS addressed several legal issues, including CONI's passive standing in the appeal, the classification of the violations as a single or multiple offenses, the existence of aggravating circumstances, the duration of the suspension, and the admissibility of financial penalties alongside suspensions. The CAS ruled that CONI had passive standing and could be liable for procedural costs if its decision was found incorrect. It also determined that the two violations constituted a single first offense because the notification of the first violation occurred after the second violation was committed, though aggravating circumstances were acknowledged. The suspension duration was upheld at two and a half years, but the CAS clarified that financial penalties could be imposed alongside suspensions, provided they were proportional and based on the cyclist's expected annual net income, not actual earnings.
The case stemmed from Muto's participation in two cycling events where he tested positive for prohibited substances. CONI initially treated the violations as a single offense under the World Anti-Doping Code, imposing a two-and-a-half-year suspension and other penalties. The UCI contested this, arguing for a harsher sanction. The CAS ultimately upheld the suspension but increased it to three years, considering the severity of the violations—two positive tests within 15 days, including EPO, which indicated intentional doping. The CAS also imposed a financial penalty of 19,250 euros, representing 70% of Muto's annual gross income for 2011, and annulled all competitive results achieved by Muto from March 25, 2011, onward. Additionally, Muto was ordered to pay 2,500 Swiss francs for the costs of managing the doping test results.
The ruling reinforced the importance of procedural fairness, proportionality in sanctions, and the correct application of anti-doping regulations. It highlighted the strict liability principle in anti-doping cases, where athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances found in their samples, regardless of intent or negligence. The decision serves as a precedent for handling multiple doping violations when notifications overlap and for calculating financial penalties. It underscores the role of national anti-doping bodies in enforcing international standards while ensuring due process for athletes. The CAS's intervention balanced strict anti-doping enforcement with fairness to the athlete, providing guidance for future cases involving similar procedural and substantive issues. The case illustrates the complexities of anti-doping regulations and the need for clear legal interpretations to maintain consistency in disciplinary actions.