The case involves a professional cyclist, D., who was sanctioned for doping violations during the Giro 2001 after Italian authorities seized prohibited substances, including a vial of IGF1 4 CH and a syringe containing traces of insulin, during a raid on June 7, 2001. D. claimed the IGF1 was a homeopathic medicine and denied using the syringe, but the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) classified both as banned substances under its regulations. The Italian Cycling Federation (FCI) initially imposed a six-month suspension, later adjusted to account for a prior three-month suspension related to a separate caffeine case. The UCI appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the sanction was insufficient and did not meet the minimum six-month requirement, while also contesting the reduced fine of CHF 2,000 instead of the mandatory CHF 3,000. The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction and reviewed the evidence, including D.'s self-imposed suspensions and contract termination. It ruled that the presence of insulin in the syringe and the IGF1 vial constituted doping violations, dismissing D.'s objections about the reliability of low-concentration test results. The CAS upheld the UCI's appeal, emphasizing that suspensions must be effective and not overlap with regulatory inactivity periods, such as the standard off-season from November 1 to January 31. D.'s prior inactivity, including a three-month suspension in 2001 and contract termination in 2002, was factored into the penalty. The final ruling imposed a six-month suspension from October 1, 2002, to March 15, 2003, and a CHF 3,000 fine. The decision reinforced strict anti-doping enforcement, clarified the legal principles governing disciplinary sanctions, and highlighted the importance of procedural compliance and substantive evidence in doping cases. The case underscores the authority of sports arbitration bodies in resolving such disputes and ensuring penalties are both fair and effective.