Roberto Alexander Del Pino, a competitor licensed by the Union Internationale Motonautique (UIM), appealed a decision by the UIM Anti-Doping Panel (UIM ADP) dated 25 October 2014, which found him guilty of an anti-doping violation. The violation stemmed from his urine sample testing positive for methylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine, during the WIM World Aquabike Class Pro-Runabout GP1 competition in Milan on 6 June 2014. The sample collection was overseen by Doping Control Officer Roberta Mandelli, and subsequent testing at a WADA-accredited laboratory in Cologne, Germany, confirmed the presence of the prohibited substance in both the 'A' and 'B' samples. Del Pino contested the decision, raising concerns about the chain of custody, sample refrigeration, potential tampering due to discrepancies in urine volume, and the independence of the witness during the 'B' sample analysis.
The UIM defended its procedures, asserting that the chain of custody was secure, with samples stored in a refrigerator at Mandelli’s home before transport to the laboratory. They argued that any lack of refrigeration would not increase cocaine metabolite levels and dismissed claims of tampering, clarifying that documentation aligned with standard practices. The UIM also maintained that the witness for the 'B' sample test met independence requirements under relevant rules. The case proceeded to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where the panel reviewed evidence, including testimony from Mandelli and an expert witness. Del Pino did not attend the hearing for personal reasons.
The CAS panel concluded that Del Pino failed to demonstrate significant procedural departures that would invalidate the UIM ADP’s decision. It upheld the original sanctions: disqualification from the competition and subsequent events, along with a two-year ineligibility period from UIM events, effective from 25 September 2014 to 25 September 2016. The panel addressed Del Pino’s arguments in detail, finding no merit in claims about chain of custody, sample integrity, or witness independence. Expert testimony confirmed that any lack of refrigeration would not produce false positives, and laboratory records showed no evidence of tampering. The panel also ruled that the witness, Mr. Krannich, was sufficiently independent, as he had no affiliation with the UIM or the athlete.
Ultimately, the CAS panel dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that minor procedural deviations did not undermine the reliability of the anti-doping violation findings. The decision reinforced the importance of adhering to anti-doping protocols while affirming that technicalities alone cannot overturn valid violations. The ruling upheld the principles of fair play and accountability in competitive sports.