The case involves professional cyclist André Cardoso appealing a decision by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) that found him guilty of an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) for the use of recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). The UCI imposed a provisional suspension and a fine of EUR 56,000. The appeal was heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which upheld the UCI's decision. The key legal issues revolved around the distinction between "presence" and "use" cases under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) and UCI Anti-Doping Rules (ADR), the reliability of analytical data from the A-sample without B-sample confirmation, and the hierarchy of norms in anti-doping regulations.
Cardoso's A-sample tested positive for rhEPO on June 27, 2017, leading to a provisional suspension. His B-sample, analyzed on July 25, 2017, yielded an atypical finding, being "doubtful but inconclusive." The UCI charged Cardoso with an ADRV for "Use or Attempted Use" under Article 2.2 of the UCI ADR. Cardoso sought to lift his provisional suspension, but the UCI Disciplinary Commission rejected his request. He later refused an offer to accept consequences, leading to the UCI's final decision, which he appealed to CAS.
The CAS panel clarified that under Article 2.2 of the UCI ADR, a charge of "use" can be established by reliable analytical data from the A-sample alone, provided the Anti-Doping Organization offers a satisfactory explanation for the lack of B-sample confirmation. The panel emphasized that higher-ranking norms, such as the WADC, take precedence over lower-level regulations like the International Standard for Laboratories. The burden of proof in "use" cases requires the anti-doping authority to demonstrate the reliability of the A-sample result and provide a satisfactory explanation for the inconclusive B-sample, both to the standard of "comfortable satisfaction."
Cardoso argued that the absence of B-sample confirmation invalidated the test results, citing provisions in the ISL and the WADA Athlete Reference Guide. However, the panel rejected this argument, noting that the ISL does not override the WADC and that the guide lacks legal standing. The panel found that the UCI had met its burden by providing credible expert testimony explaining the B-sample's inconclusive result due to degradation caused by factors like microbial activity or high pH. Cardoso's alternative explanations, such as chronic alcohol consumption or a glycosylation disorder, were deemed unsupported by evidence.
The panel also addressed procedural objections raised by Cardoso, including claims of unfair proceedings and lack of legal aid. It found that Cardoso had consented to CAS jurisdiction and was adequately represented, with opportunities to present his case fully. The panel dismissed his challenges to the independence of CAS arbitrators, referencing the ECHR's ruling in Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland, which upheld CAS's impartiality.
Ultimately, the panel upheld the UCI's finding of an ADRV under Article 2.2, affirming the four-year ineligibility period. However, it reduced the fine to EUR 26,000, considering Cardoso's financial situation due to his provisional suspension. The decision underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and the flexibility of Article 2.2 in allowing single-sample evidence to establish a violation when supported by reliable data and a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation. The case highlights the challenges athletes face in contesting doping allegations and the importance of scientific evidence in upholding fair competition.