The case involves a professional cyclist, S., who admitted to using prohibited doping substances between November 1996 and July 1997 during an investigation by Italian authorities in 1999. However, he did not disclose this information to cycling authorities until late 2001. The Federazione Ciclista Italiana (FCI) initially suspended him for three months, from December 2001 to March 2002. The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) later intervened, arguing the sanction was insufficient under its Anti-Doping Examination Regulations (AER), which mandated a minimum six-month suspension and a fine of CHF 2,000. The UCI imposed these penalties, adjusting the suspension to account for periods of inactivity and proposing a two-month probation period, reducing the effective suspension to four months.
S. appealed the UCI’s decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), claiming violations of his rights, including the principle of ne bis in idem (no double jeopardy), improper application of rules, and incorrect calculation of his inactivity period. He also argued for leniency due to his cooperation in exposing doping practices. The UCI maintained that the six-month suspension and fine were mandatory and that S.’s rights were respected throughout the process. The CAS panel upheld the UCI’s jurisdiction and the applicability of its rules, emphasizing that the AER applied regardless of whether the athlete admitted doping in a specific race. The panel also ruled that the period of inactivity should be interpreted restrictively, only applying if no races occurred during that time.
The CAS partially upheld S.’s appeal, adjusting the suspension period to account for his intended participation in races, ultimately setting the suspension from November 24, 2001, to June 25, 2002, after factoring in inactivity and probation. The fine of CHF 2,000 was confirmed. The panel acknowledged S.’s delayed cooperation but recognized his significant role in breaking the "wall of silence" around doping, which led to the indictment of others involved. The decision reinforced the mandatory nature of anti-doping penalties while balancing the need for proportionate sanctions and recognizing contributions to anti-doping efforts.
The case highlights the balance between enforcing anti-doping measures and recognizing cooperation, while ensuring procedural fairness and legal certainty. It underscores the importance of consistent application of anti-doping rules and the authority of international federations to impose stricter penalties than national bodies. The ruling also clarifies the procedural and substantive rules governing doping cases, emphasizing transparency and cooperation in anti-doping efforts. The CAS’s decision ultimately dismissed most of S.’s appeals but adjusted the suspension period to reflect his circumstances, demonstrating a nuanced approach to disciplinary actions in sports.