The case involves Finnish cyclist Matti Helminen appealing a decision by the Royale Ligue Vélocipédique Belge (RLVB) after testing positive for Probenecid during the 2012 Skoda Tour Luxembourg. The RLVB's Disciplinary Committee suspended Helminen for two years, fined him €19,250, and disqualified his results from the event. Helminen appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing procedural irregularities and questioning whether Probenecid had performance-enhancing effects. The CAS panel, composed of three arbitrators, upheld the RLVB’s decision, reinforcing key legal principles in anti-doping cases.
The panel clarified that delays in reporting A-sample results, while ideally within 30 days, are not strictly mandatory and can be extended due to logistical or analytical complexities. However, the athlete must prove such delays affected the adverse analytical finding (AAF). The panel affirmed that while CAS jurisprudence is not strictly bound by precedent, previous decisions hold substantial weight, and any jurisprudential change requires persuasive arguments. Helminen’s claims of irregularities in transportation documentation and ambiguous official documents were dismissed because he and his representative attended the B-sample opening without raising objections.
The panel reiterated the strict liability principle under the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, meaning athletes are responsible for prohibited substances in their system regardless of intent or performance-enhancing effects. To avoid sanctions, the athlete must prove how the substance entered their system and demonstrate no fault or negligence. The "balance of probabilities" standard was interpreted as requiring evidence that an alternative explanation is more likely than not. The panel rejected Helminen’s arguments about Probenecid’s market availability, potential contamination in meat production, and its rarity in doping cases, finding these insufficient to establish the source of the substance.
Helminen proposed several possible sources for the Probenecid, including contaminated meat, a recovery drink, vitamin supplements, or environmental exposure. However, the panel found these explanations speculative and lacking concrete evidence. The panel also confirmed that fines should be based on a full year’s net income, rejecting Helminen’s request to reduce the fine due to lost earnings during suspension. Despite his claims of financial hardship, the panel noted he provided insufficient documentation to prove incapacity to pay or justify a reduction.
The procedural history showed that Helminen’s A-sample tested positive on June 28, 2012, and the B-sample confirmed the result on July 24, 2012. After a hearing, the RLVB issued its decision on October 18, 2012. Helminen’s appeal to CAS was filed on November 8, 2012, and the panel was constituted in March 2013. The parties were instructed to provide translations of non-English documents, with untranslated evidence being disregarded.
Ultimately, the CAS panel upheld the RLVB’s sanctions, reinforcing strict liability in anti-doping regulations and the necessity for athletes to provide credible evidence to rebut doping charges. The decision underscores the rigorous standards applied in doping cases and the limited scope for athletes to challenge sanctions based on procedural or substantive grounds. The panel dismissed Helminen’s appeal, upheld the two-year ban and financial penalty, and rejected all other requests for relief, emphasizing the appellant's lack of substantiated claims regarding his financial and employment circumstances.