The case centers on an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) by a rider, S., challenging a decision by the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) Judicial Committee. The rider was penalized after his horse tested positive for a prohibited substance, hydroxyethylhydroxypromazine, during two competitions in December 1990. The FEI imposed a six-month suspension, disqualification from the events, and a fine of SFr. 3,000. The rider contested the decision, arguing that the urine samples were improperly sealed, potentially compromising the integrity of the analysis. Under FEI Regulations, a legal presumption of guilt applies if a prohibited substance is detected, placing the burden of proof on the accused. However, the CAS recognized the accused's right to present counter-evidence to challenge this presumption, particularly given the severity of the penalties.
The rider disputed the validity of the sampling procedure, specifically the sealing of the "B" urine samples. Expert testimony from Professor Manfred Donike, a specialist in doping analysis, confirmed that the jars were improperly sealed, as the wire was not twisted correctly, allowing the seal to slide without damage. This flaw raised concerns about possible contamination or tampering, as the jars could be opened and altered without detection. The CAS panel accepted Professor Donike’s findings and concluded that the FEI Veterinary Regulations had not been followed, rendering the sampling process invalid. Since the improper sealing could have affected the reliability of the test results, the legal presumption of guilt was overturned.
The CAS ruled in favor of the rider, overturning the FEI’s decision and absolving him of all penalties. The case underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to procedural rules in doping controls and reaffirms the principle that accused parties must have the opportunity to challenge evidence when procedural flaws are demonstrated. The ruling also highlights the CAS’s role in ensuring fairness in sports disciplinary matters, emphasizing that deviations from established protocols can undermine the validity of results, especially when the consequences for the accused are significant. The decision serves as a reminder that procedural integrity is essential to maintaining trust and accuracy in anti-doping measures.