The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a doping case involving cyclist V. and the Swiss Cycling Federation, stemming from the 1998 Tour de France. During the race, a team staff member was caught with doping substances, leading to the team's exclusion. Three of V.'s teammates admitted to using erythropoietin (EPO) early in the investigation and received eight-month suspensions, with one month suspended. V., however, only confessed to doping during a criminal trial in October 2000, admitting to extensive use of EPO, anabolic steroids, corticosteroids, and caffeine over five years (1993–1998). Swiss Cycling, at the request of the International Cycling Union (UCI), imposed a nine-month suspension without probation and a CHF 4,000 fine, effective from February 1, 2001. V. contested the suspension's length and start date but not the fine.
The CAS examined the case under UCI regulations and found V.'s doping constituted multiple infractions, with the statute of limitations starting only after his last offense in 1998. The CAS deemed the nine-month suspension appropriate, noting it could have been closer to the maximum one-year penalty given the severity of V.'s violations. However, it could not increase the sanction as neither party requested it. The CAS rejected V.'s request for probation, citing his delayed and coerced confession, which contrasted with his teammates' early admissions. V. argued his treatment violated the principle of equality, but the CAS highlighted key differences: V.'s prolonged doping, use of additional substances, and delayed confession, which allowed him to benefit from his reputation during years of denial.
The ruling emphasized the importance of timely confessions in anti-doping cases, noting Swiss law typically imposes harsher penalties for late admissions. The "3 Suisses" received leniency due to their honesty and cooperation, while V.'s belated admission under legal pressure carried less weight. The CAS also considered V.'s systematic doping, which significantly enhanced his competitive success, as aggravating his culpability. While the prevalence of doping in cycling was acknowledged as a mitigating factor, it did not absolve V. of responsibility. The CAS upheld the suspension but adjusted its start date to December 30, 2000, deducting time V. had already served due to prior exclusions and internal suspensions, effectively ending the suspension on August 14, 2001.
The decision underscored the balance between enforcing anti-doping rules and ensuring fairness, applying the principle of lex mitior where appropriate. It also clarified procedural aspects, such as the timing of admissions and their impact on prescription periods, while rejecting V.'s request to offset his suspension with prior inactivity periods. The CAS partially granted V.'s appeal, modifying the suspension period but maintaining the fine and overall severity of the penalty. The ruling highlighted the challenges of addressing systemic doping in professional cycling and the need for uniform application of anti-doping regulations to maintain fairness and deterrence.