The case centers on an appeal by a cross-country skier, referred to as M., against a two-year suspension imposed by the International Ski Federation (FIS) for a doping violation. The suspension followed an out-of-competition test conducted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) during the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, which detected Darbepoetin alfa (Aranesp), a prohibited substance, in M.'s urine. Darbepoetin is an artificial substance, analogous to erythropoietin (EPO), and its presence unequivocally indicates deliberate administration due to its performance-enhancing properties. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld the IOC's decision to disqualify M. from the Olympics and strip him of his gold medal in the men’s 50km cross-country ski event.
M. contested the suspension, arguing it was excessive and would effectively end his career. He sought a reduction, citing his clean record, the uncertainty surrounding Aranesp detection, reputational and economic harm, and the disproportionate impact of the penalty. He also referenced the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code (OMAC), which permits modifying sanctions under exceptional circumstances. FIS countered that M., as a licensed athlete, was bound by its rules, including the FIS Medical Guide, which mandates a two-year suspension for deliberate doping. Since Darbepoetin cannot occur naturally, its presence implied intentional use, and M. provided no explanation for its presence. FIS argued that reducing the sanction would undermine anti-doping efforts.
The CAS panel, having previously ruled in a related case that M. violated anti-doping rules, found no grounds to reduce the suspension. It rejected M.'s arguments, emphasizing the substance's nature and the lack of plausible explanation left no room for leniency. The panel dismissed claims that the novelty of Aranesp or M.'s clean record warranted mitigation, stating deliberate use was an aggravating factor. Economic consequences, including lost medals and income, were also deemed irrelevant, as M. knowingly took risks for potential rewards. The panel acknowledged the sanction might end M.'s career but upheld it as consistent with established standards.
The panel further clarified that prior to February 23rd, M. had not tested positive for prohibited substances, dismissing unsubstantiated claims as violating principles of natural justice. However, M.'s clean record alone was insufficient for sanction reduction. The panel stressed that without demonstrating remorse or providing a credible defense, no special circumstances justified leniency. Ultimately, the CAS upheld the two-year suspension, effective from February 21, 2002, to February 20, 2004, and dismissed the appeal. The ruling reinforced strict anti-doping enforcement and the limited grounds for mitigating sanctions in deliberate violation cases. The Court of Arbitration for Sport affirmed the FIS decision, maintaining the disciplinary measures.