The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on March 19, 2018, in a case involving Elizabeth Juliano, Maryanna Haymon, Adrienne Lyle, and Kaitlin Blythe against the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI). The dispute centered on the provisional suspension of two horses, Horizon and Don Principe, following an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) for the banned substance ractopamine. The CAS panel, composed of Michael Beloff QC, Prof. Massimo Coccia, and Prof. Cameron Myler, addressed key issues including the admissibility of new evidence, the validity of the mandatory provisional suspension, and the proportionality of its duration. The panel conducted a de novo hearing under Article R57 of the CAS Code, evaluating all evidence regardless of its availability to the FEI Tribunal earlier. It upheld the FEI's mandatory provisional suspension under Article 7.4.1 of the 2016 Equine Anti-Doping Rules (EAD Rules), which applies to banned substances not classified as Specified Substances.
The case arose after both horses tested positive for ractopamine during the Adequan Global Dressage Festival in February 2017. The owners argued that the substance likely entered the horses' systems through contaminated feed supplements, specifically "Soothing Pink," which did not list ractopamine as an ingredient. Cargill, the supplement manufacturer, conducted an investigation confirming contamination and withdrew the product from the market. The owners requested a preliminary hearing to lift the suspensions, which the FEI Tribunal granted for the riders but upheld for the horses, citing welfare and competitive fairness. The owners contested this decision, arguing there was no justification for maintaining the horses' suspensions, especially given negative test results and lack of welfare concerns. The FEI Tribunal maintained its stance, referencing an uncodified "Two-Month Policy" mandating suspensions for banned substance violations regardless of fault.
The CAS panel examined the policy's legitimacy, proportionality, and transparency. It found the policy pursued legitimate aims, such as horse welfare and fair competition, and deemed the two-month suspension reasonable compared to other authorities' longer suspensions. The panel acknowledged transparency concerns but noted the policy was well-known within the FEI and had been presented to the General Assembly annually since 2012. The panel rejected the appellants' argument that exceptional circumstances warranted lifting the suspension, emphasizing the need for uniform application of anti-doping rules. It applied the precautionary principle, noting that residual effects of ractopamine could not be entirely ruled out despite negative tests. Expert testimony was divided, with Dr. Tobin asserting no residual impact and Professor Toutain cautioning about potential long-term effects on muscle development.
The panel dismissed the appeal, upholding the FEI's policy but terminated the remaining suspension period, as the substance's effects were deemed to have dissipated by then. The CAS partially upheld the appeal, ending the provisional suspensions while affirming the validity of the FEI's policy. The ruling underscored the balance between individual fairness and regulatory consistency in equestrian sports, reinforcing the FEI's authority to impose provisional suspensions to protect horse welfare and competition integrity.