The case revolves around cyclist Vladimir Koev, who tested positive for the prohibited substance Heptaminol during the 2010 Tour of Romania. Koev admitted the presence of the substance in his system but claimed it resulted from taking Ginkor Fort, a medication prescribed for hemorrhoids, which he did not disclose due to embarrassment. He provided medical documentation supporting his treatment, arguing he had no intent to enhance performance. The Bulgarian Cycling Union (BCU) initially ruled in his favor, accepting his explanation and noting his cooperation and lack of performance-enhancing intent. However, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking stricter sanctions, particularly given Koev’s prior doping violation in 2006 involving stanozolol.
The CAS panel examined whether Koev had established how the substance entered his body and whether there was intent to enhance performance. While Koev’s medical records confirmed his condition and prescription, the panel found his failure to verify the medication’s contents or apply for a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) demonstrated negligence. The principle of strict liability in anti-doping regulations holds athletes responsible for any prohibited substances in their system, regardless of intent. The panel noted that Koev, as a professional cyclist with prior doping experience, should have exercised greater caution. His failure to disclose the medication during testing further weakened his credibility.
The UCI argued for severe penalties, including a four-year ineligibility period or even an eight-year to lifetime ban, given Koev’s repeat offense. The panel ultimately ruled that Koev did not meet the burden of proof required to establish no fault or negligence, nor did he sufficiently demonstrate lack of intent to enhance performance. Consequently, the CAS upheld the UCI’s appeal, imposing an eight-year ineligibility period retroactive to June 2010, disqualifying Koev’s results from the 2010 Tour of Romania onward, and ordering financial penalties, including fines and reimbursement of costs.
The case underscores the strict liability framework in anti-doping regulations, emphasizing athletes’ responsibility to verify medications and comply with disclosure requirements. It also highlights the challenges athletes face in proving unintentional ingestion of prohibited substances, particularly when prior violations are involved. The ruling reinforces the importance of vigilance and adherence to anti-doping protocols to maintain fairness and integrity in competitive sports.