The case involves Chilean cyclist Carlos Iván Oyarzun Guiñez, who appealed a decision by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) regarding an anti-doping rule violation. The dispute arose from a positive test for the prohibited substance FG-4592 during the 2015 Pan-American Games. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel addressed several key issues, ruling that certain entities lacked legal standing to be sued while emphasizing the athlete's right to attend the B sample analysis. Improper notification rendered the B sample results inadmissible for establishing a "Presence" violation, though they could still be considered for a "Use" violation if corroborated by other evidence like urine and blood samples or expert reports.
The panel found that Oyarzun bore the burden of proving the violation was unintentional, which he failed to do. Given that FG-4592 was in clinical trials and not commercially available, the panel ruled out accidental ingestion, rejecting claims for reduced sanctions based on "No Fault or Negligence" or "exceptional circumstances." The factual background revealed that Oyarzun tested positive during the Pan-American Games and was provisionally suspended. He denied the violation and requested B sample analysis but claimed improper notification of the analysis date, learning of it through social media. His request for postponement was denied, and the B sample confirmed the presence of FG-4592, a substance prohibited at all times.
The UCI sought a four-year ineligibility period, disqualification of results, and cost reimbursement. Oyarzun objected to the tribunal’s jurisdiction and requested the case be transferred to Chile’s National Anti-Doping Organization, but later withdrew this objection. The UCI-ADT ruled that while the B sample analysis violated procedural rights, the A sample results and additional evidence sufficiently established a "Use" violation. The tribunal imposed a four-year ineligibility period, backdated to account for his provisional suspension, and disqualified his results from the relevant period.
Oyarzun appealed to CAS, arguing procedural unfairness, including prolonged proceedings and improper notification of the B sample analysis. He also contested the validity of the urine sample analysis and presented alternative explanations for his blood profile variations, such as high-altitude training. The UCI maintained that the evidence was reliable and that Oyarzun failed to prove unintentional ingestion. The CAS panel upheld the UCI-ADT’s decision, confirming the four-year suspension and associated penalties. The ruling underscored the importance of procedural fairness while maintaining strict liability for athletes regarding prohibited substances. The panel dismissed Oyarzun’s claims for damages and upheld the sanctions, concluding he failed to meet the criteria for leniency under anti-doping rules.
Ultimately, the case highlights the complexities of anti-doping procedures, the athlete’s right to contest allegations, and the high burden of proof required to overturn sanctions. The decision reaffirmed the strict application of anti-doping regulations and the necessity for athletes to provide credible evidence to support claims of unintentional violations.