The case involves Slovenian mountain-bike cyclist Blaza Klemencic, who appealed a decision by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) Anti-Doping Tribunal finding her guilty of an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) and imposing sanctions. The dispute arose from a urine sample collected in March 2012, which was initially tested and found negative for prohibited substances, including erythropoietin (EPO). However, in 2015, the sample was retested under improved detection methods and found to contain EPO, leading to her provisional suspension. Klemencic challenged the findings, arguing procedural flaws and questioning the reliability of the retesting process. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel addressed several legal issues, including the principle of ne bis in idem (double jeopardy), the distinction between substantive and procedural law under the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR), and the retroactive application of rules.
The panel ruled that an athlete cannot be sanctioned twice for the same offense under different provisions, such as "Presence" and "Use" of a prohibited substance. It also clarified that retesting procedures outlined in the 2012 International Standard for Laboratories (ISL) could be applied even if not explicitly mentioned in the 2012 UCI ADR, meaning the retesting under the 2015 rules did not constitute retroactive application of new regulations. The panel emphasized that evidentiary rules, such as those governing the splitting of B-samples, were procedural and thus not subject to retroactivity prohibitions. The panel found that the UCI had established the ADRV to its comfortable satisfaction, relying on confirmatory analyses from WADA-accredited laboratories in Cologne and Lausanne. Klemencic's arguments about procedural departures and potential conflicts of interest were dismissed due to insufficient evidence linking these issues to the adverse analytical finding.
Regarding sanctions, the panel upheld a two-year period of ineligibility, starting from September 2015 when Klemencic was informed of the retesting results, rather than the sample collection date in 2012. The panel reasoned that backdating the sanction would undermine the purpose of retesting under improved detection methods. It also partially disqualified her competitive results, limiting the disqualification to the period from March to December 2012, while allowing later results to stand due to the extraordinary delay in retesting. The panel reduced the original fine imposed on Klemencic from EUR 10,025 to EUR 6,200, considering her financial hardship and reduced earnings by 2016.
The case highlights the complexities of anti-doping regulations, particularly in retesting scenarios, and the balance between athlete rights and enforcement. The panel's decision underscores the importance of harmonizing anti-doping rules with international standards while ensuring procedural fairness. It also clarifies the application of retroactive rules, evidentiary standards, and sanction timing in doping cases involving retesting, providing guidance for future disputes. The ruling affirms the UCI's actions while adjusting sanctions to reflect proportionality and the specific circumstances of the case.