The case involves an appeal by Diego Dominguez against the decision of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile's (FIA) Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (TUEC), which denied his request for a retroactive Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for the use of amphetamine-containing medications. Dominguez, a rally competitor diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), had been prescribed medications containing amphetamine, a prohibited substance under anti-doping regulations. During an in-competition doping test at the Santa Cruz Rally in Bolivia, amphetamine was detected in his sample, leading to an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) charge. Dominguez applied for a retroactive TUE, arguing his medical condition justified the use of the prohibited substance, but the TUEC denied his request, stating the fairness criteria were not met without providing detailed reasons.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel examined several key issues, including jurisdiction, admissibility, and the validity of the TUEC's decision. It confirmed that participation in FIA events implies acceptance of its anti-doping regulations, including the Therapeutic Use Exemption International Standard (ISTUE). The panel noted that while CAS cannot replace the TUEC’s assessment of fairness, it can review decisions that are arbitrary, disproportionate, or lack due process. The panel criticized the TUEC’s decision for not providing sufficient reasoning, as required by ISTUE Article 6.8.b, which mandates a clear rationale for denying a TUE application. The lack of detailed reasoning deprived Dominguez of the opportunity to understand the basis for the decision and defend himself properly in the ADRV proceedings.
Dominguez argued he was not bound by the FIA Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR) at the time of the doping control, as he did not hold an international license or explicitly accept the FIA ADR. He also contended there was no formal TUE application process in Paraguay and that he acted in good faith by disclosing his medical condition and medications. The FIA countered that Dominguez was an international-level athlete who had tacitly accepted the FIA ADR by signing forms referencing its rules and was aware of the TUE requirement through his doctor. The FIA maintained the TUEC’s decision was valid and properly communicated, though it lacked detailed reasoning.
The CAS panel ultimately ruled in favor of Dominguez, finding the TUEC’s decision invalid due to its lack of reasoning, which violated procedural fairness and Dominguez’s rights under Swiss law. The panel emphasized the importance of transparency and due process in anti-doping regulations, particularly when athletes seek exemptions for legitimate medical reasons. It set aside the challenged decision and remanded the matter to the TUEC for a new, properly reasoned decision. The panel did not address whether specific articles of the FIA ADR applied to Dominguez, as the decision's nullity made such an assessment unnecessary. The case underscores the necessity for sports governing bodies to provide clear and reasoned decisions to ensure fairness and accountability in the anti-doping process.