The case involves an appeal by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) against a decision by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) to impose a three-month suspension on Paralympic cyclist Monica Bascio for an anti-doping rule violation. Bascio tested positive for the prohibited substance tuaminoheptane, found in the nasal decongestant Rinofluimucil, which she had declared on her doping control form. The UCI argued for a standard two-year suspension, contending that Bascio was grossly negligent for not verifying the medication's contents, especially since she had previously obtained a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) and was aware of anti-doping rules. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was tasked with reviewing the case de novo, meaning it independently assessed the facts and law without deference to the initial decision.
Bascio admitted the violation but argued that she had no intent to enhance performance, citing her medical need for the medication, her declaration of its use, and her clean anti-doping record. She also waived her right to a B-sample analysis and cooperated fully with the investigation. USADA supported the three-month sanction, emphasizing the principle of proportionality and Bascio's lack of intent. The CAS panel examined whether Bascio met the conditions for a reduced sanction under Article 295 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules (ADR), which allows for leniency in cases involving specified substances if the athlete can prove the substance's origin and lack of performance-enhancing intent. The panel found Bascio's account credible, supported by corroborating evidence, including witness statements and email correspondence.
The panel also assessed Bascio's degree of fault, balancing her negligence in not checking the medication's ingredients against mitigating factors such as her reliance on a pharmacist's advice, her declaration of the medication, and the fact that the warnings were in Italian, a language she did not understand. The panel concluded that her violation was minor, justifying the reduced three-month suspension. It rejected the UCI's argument for a longer sanction, noting that Bascio had already served her ineligibility period due to delays in the appeal process. The panel also dismissed the UCI's request for financial penalties, as Bascio was not a professional athlete receiving payment for her sports activities.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld USADA's decision, dismissing the UCI's appeal and maintaining the three-month suspension. The ruling underscores the importance of fairness and proportionality in anti-doping cases, particularly when assessing an athlete's intent and degree of fault. It also highlights the CAS's role in ensuring consistent and equitable application of anti-doping regulations, taking into account the specific circumstances of each case. The decision reaffirms the balance between strict liability and fairness, ensuring that sanctions are appropriate to the nature of the violation and the athlete's conduct.