The case involves Alexander Ruoff, a professional basketball player, appealing a six-month suspension imposed by the Vlaamse Basketballiga (VBL) for an anti-doping violation. Ruoff tested positive for 4-Methyl-2-Hexanamine on October 12, 2011, during an in-competition anti-doping control. He waived his right to analyze the "B" sample and was subsequently suspended by the Disciplinaire Commissie voor Elitesporters (DCE) on June 28, 2012, with the suspension set to end on December 27, 2012. Ruoff argued that the disciplinary proceedings were delayed by 32 weeks due to factors such as document translation, drafting of accusations, scheduling of hearings, and case handling—none of which were his fault. He requested the suspension start date be adjusted to October 12, 2011, or alternative dates, citing precedents and regulations allowing for such adjustments in cases of substantial delays.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) assessed the case under the guidance of a sole arbitrator, Manfred Nan. The arbitrator evaluated whether the delays were substantial and not attributable to Ruoff, considering factors like the total duration of proceedings, case complexity, authorities' handling, and the player's influence on the process. While an eight-month duration for such proceedings is generally not considered a substantial delay, the arbitrator found that multiple delays in separate phases, including a stay due to missing documentation and inefficiencies in handling translations and scheduling, constituted substantial delays. The case was not complex, and Ruoff did not contribute to the delays. Consequently, the arbitrator ruled that the suspension should start retroactively from October 12, 2011, aligning with the player's request and anti-doping regulations.
Ruoff proposed four alternative start dates for his suspension: October 12, 2011 (sample collection date), November 27, 2011 (day after his last official game), January 1, 2012, or April 26, 2012 (date of his first hearing). He also sought reimbursement of legal fees and CAS court costs. The VBL countered that the disciplinary committee correctly applied its regulations, arguing that an eight-month delay was not substantial and that Ruoff did not promptly admit the violation or accept a provisional suspension. They noted his absence from games after November 27, 2011, was due to injury, not suspension, and should not influence the ineligibility period’s start date. The VBL requested the appeal be dismissed and the original decision upheld.
The CAS Sole Arbitrator confirmed jurisdiction and applicable law, focusing on whether the ineligibility period should start earlier due to procedural delays. The arbitrator examined VBL regulations, which generally state that ineligibility begins on the decision date unless exceptions apply, such as substantial delays not caused by the athlete. While acknowledging that an eight-month delay is not inherently substantial, the arbitrator considered the specifics of the case, including procedural phases and authorities' handling. Ultimately, the arbitrator ruled that the suspension should begin on April 26, 2012, the date of the first hearing, rather than June 28, 2012, the decision date. The arbitrator clarified that Ruoff's voluntary non-participation in competitions before the provisional suspension could not be credited toward his ineligibility period. The CAS partially upheld Ruoff's appeal, adjusting the suspension start date but dismissing all other claims. The decision highlights the importance of timely and efficient handling of doping cases while ensuring fairness to the athlete.