The case involves an appeal by a cyclist, referred to as M., against a doping sanction imposed by Swiss Cycling after testing positive for recombinant erythropoietin (rEPO) during the "Flèche Wallone" race on 18 April 2001. The urine sample analysis, conducted by the Institut Universitaire de Médecine Légale (IUML) in Lausanne, confirmed the presence of rEPO in both the A and B samples. Swiss Cycling's Doping Tribunal subsequently suspended M. for eight months, fined him CHF 4,000, disqualified him from the race, and ordered him to pay additional costs. M. appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), challenging procedural errors and the scientific validity of the rEPO testing method.
M. argued that procedural defects, such as delays in analyzing the B sample, lack of access to original files, and improper signing of hearing minutes, undermined the fairness of the proceedings. He also contested the reliability of the rEPO test, invoking the legal principle "in dubio pro reo" (in doubt, favor the accused) and seeking acquittal. Swiss Cycling defended the decision, asserting the test results were reliable and that any procedural errors did not affect the outcome. They cited supporting studies and noted M. was selected for testing due to abnormal blood results.
The CAS panel, applying the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations and Swiss law, confirmed its jurisdiction and dismissed procedural concerns, ruling that any defects in the federation's internal proceedings were remedied by the CAS arbitration. The panel also upheld the scientific validity of the rEPO test, which combined isoelectric focusing with double immunoblotting to distinguish artificial rEPO from natural EPO. The method was deemed sufficiently proven and reliable for detecting doping.
The CAS upheld Swiss Cycling's decision but made adjustments to the sanctions. The eight-month suspension was maintained but backdated to 18 June 2001, accounting for M.'s provisional suspension by his team. The fine was reduced to CHF 2,000, considering M.'s financial situation and personal circumstances. The panel also reversed the order for M. to pay additional procedural costs, though he remained responsible for the B sample analysis fees. The disqualification from the "Flèche Wallone 2001" race was affirmed.
The ruling reinforced the CAS's authority to review and rectify procedural flaws while endorsing the scientific validity of the rEPO testing method. It emphasized the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations in professional cycling and the higher standard of proof—"comfortable satisfaction"—required in such cases. The decision balanced fairness with accountability, ensuring the sanctions were proportionate and justified based on the evidence. The case underscores the importance of objective, verifiable criteria in doping cases and the role of expert testimony in upholding the integrity of anti-doping measures.