The case involves an appeal by Italian cyclist S. against the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) for extending his doping-related suspension. S. had admitted to using banned substances during a 1999 investigation, leading to a three-month suspension by the Federazione Ciclistica Italiana (FCI) in November 2001. The UCI later revised this sanction, extending it until July 31, 2002, based on its anti-doping regulations. S. appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on April 16, 2002, requesting an immediate stay of the UCI's decision, arguing it would cause irreparable harm by preventing his participation in key races.
S. raised several issues, including procedural violations, as the UCI acted as both investigator and decision-maker without granting him a defense. He also claimed the UCI's decision was untimely, coming 36 days after receiving information from the FCI, and argued it violated the prohibition against double jeopardy since he had already served his initial suspension. Additionally, S. contested the applicability of UCI regulations, asserting they did not align with those in force during his FCI hearing and that the calculation of his inactivity period was incorrect.
The CAS President, ruling on the stay request, considered factors such as irreparable harm, likelihood of success on appeal, and the balance of interests between S. and the UCI. The preliminary assessment noted that while the UCI's automatic revision of sanctions might be seen as part of a single proceeding, S. had the opportunity for a full appeal to CAS, potentially addressing any procedural deficiencies. The UCI was found to have no strict time limit for revising sanctions, and its authority to impose minimum penalties under its regulations was upheld. The applicable sanctions were deemed consistent, and the UCI's jurisdiction over doping cases was confirmed regardless of whether the violation occurred in an international or domestic race. The calculation of inactivity periods was also preliminarily accepted.
The document further clarifies that Article 90, Section 1 of the UCI Regulations was in effect during the FCI hearing, with an update in paragraph 3 allowing the UCI to automatically impose a minimum six-month sanction. The UCI Regulations apply universally to all riders, as stated in Article 131, irrespective of whether the doping offense occurred in an international or domestic race. The UCI's calculation of the rider's inactivity period was validated, as S. failed to prove that road cycling was not his primary activity. The panel also noted that any rewards for S.'s admission of fault and cooperation would be considered in the final ruling, not at the interim stage.
Ultimately, the CAS President denied the request for a stay, finding no immediate irreparable harm justifying suspension of the UCI's decision. The case underscores the complexities of anti-doping enforcement, the relationship between national and international sports bodies, and the procedural safeguards available to athletes. The full merits of S.'s appeal would be addressed in subsequent CAS proceedings. The CAS Appeals Arbitration Division president dismissed the request to stay the execution of the UCI's April 2002 decision and ruled that the order would be issued without costs, reinforcing the UCI's regulatory authority and the universal applicability of its rules.