The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) case 91/53 involved G., a member of the Italian national equestrian team, and the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) after her horse, F., tested positive for Hydroxypromazine, a prohibited substance derived from promazine, during a competition in Catane in October 1990. The FEI notified G. of the positive test results and offered her the opportunity to request a counter-analysis and submit written explanations or a personal hearing. G. opted for a counter-analysis, which confirmed the initial findings. The case centered on whether G. had negligently allowed her horse to ingest the substance. G. argued she had taken reasonable precautions, including cleaning the stable where F. had stayed before the competition, though remnants of feed and bedding remained due to organizational shortcomings. She denied intentional or negligent administration, suggesting contamination from the stable's previous occupants or during transport.
The CAS ruled that while G. had the right to defend herself, the burden of proving negligence lay with the FEI. The tribunal found G. negligent for failing to ensure the stable's complete cleanliness, particularly the removal of leftover feed, which could have contained traces of the prohibited substance. The decision emphasized riders' responsibility to prevent their horses from ingesting banned substances, even in suboptimal conditions. The CAS upheld the FEI's position, concluding G.'s negligence contributed to the positive test, reinforcing the principle that athletes must exercise due diligence to comply with anti-doping rules.
Procedurally, the CAS addressed ambiguities in the FEI's communication regarding deadlines for requesting a counter-analysis and submitting explanations. The CAS interpreted the deadlines as alternative, not cumulative, meaning G. met the requirement by requesting a counter-analysis. The FEI's failure to clarify this and its subsequent decision without further inquiry violated G.'s right to be heard, leading the CAS to annul the FEI's original ruling and order a reassessment.
In its reassessment, the CAS acknowledged the presence of Hydroxypromazine in the horse's urine but noted a veterinary report concluding the substance was ingested 72 to 96 hours before the competition, rendering it inactive during the event. The CAS found no proof of intentional doping under FEI regulations but upheld the presumption of negligence due to G.'s failure to ensure the stable's cleanliness. Consequently, the CAS partially upheld the appeal, disqualifying G. and F. from the October 1990 event but reducing the penalty to a one-month suspension and a fine of 1,000 Swiss francs. The CAS also mandated limited publication of the ruling to clarify the non-intentional nature of the violation.
The case underscored the importance of procedural fairness, the right to be heard, and the strict adherence to anti-doping regulations in equestrian sports, while also considering the specific circumstances and lack of intent in disciplinary actions.