The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a case involving the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the Spanish Anti-Doping Agency (AEPSAD), and cyclist Ibai Salas Zorrozua, centered on allegations of blood doping based on abnormalities in the athlete's Athlete Biological Passport (ABP). The ABP, a tool for detecting doping through longitudinal monitoring of blood parameters, showed significant irregularities in the athlete's hemoglobin (HGB), reticulocyte percentage (RET%), and OFF-score values, particularly in Samples 1 and 4. These abnormalities, occurring at a 99.9% specificity level, were deemed highly indicative of prohibited substances or methods, such as erythropoiesis-stimulating agents or blood transfusions. The expert panel concluded that the athlete's explanations, including altitude exposure and plasma volume shifts, were insufficient to account for the extreme deviations, reinforcing the likelihood of doping.
The case involved complex legal and procedural disputes, including jurisdictional challenges and evidentiary requests. The athlete contested CAS jurisdiction, arguing he did not explicitly consent to arbitration and that the asymmetric appeal rights under the Spanish Anti-Doping Act (ADA) violated the principle of equality of arms. However, the CAS panel upheld its jurisdiction, citing the arbitration clause in the Spanish ADA, which incorporates the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), and the athlete's implicit consent through obtaining a competition license. The panel also dismissed the athlete's request for disclosure of the ABP's Adaptive Model, a statistical tool used to flag abnormalities, ruling it irrelevant to the case's merits as it merely triggers further investigation rather than serving as direct evidence of doping.
On the merits, the panel found the ABP evidence reliable and sufficient to establish an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) under Article 22.1(b) of the Spanish ADA, corresponding to Article 2.2.1 of the WADC. The panel rejected the Spanish Administrative Court of Sport (TAD)'s earlier decision, which had annulled the sanction due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing that the ABP's abnormal values, combined with expert analysis, met the "comfortable satisfaction" standard of proof. The panel clarified that the burden of proof remained on WADA to establish a doping scenario, while the athlete's failure to provide credible alternative explanations strengthened the case against him.
The panel imposed a four-year ineligibility period on the athlete, starting from the date of the award, and disqualified all competitive results from January 25, 2017, onward. The decision underscored the ABP's validity as a standalone tool for detecting doping and reinforced the importance of uniform anti-doping enforcement. The ruling also highlighted the balance between athlete rights and the integrity of anti-doping efforts, affirming CAS's authority to resolve such disputes independently of parallel national court proceedings. The case sets a precedent for the use of ABP evidence in doping cases and clarifies the legal framework governing anti-doping regulations.