The case involves an appeal by G. against a decision by the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) concerning a doping violation involving his horse, L., which tested positive for the prohibited substance isoxsuprine during a competition on June 19, 1991. The FEI's regulations operate on a legal presumption system where the presence of a prohibited substance in a horse's sample is sufficient to impose sanctions, with the severity depending on the degree of fault. While the FEI rules do not explicitly allow for exculpatory evidence, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled that general legal principles permit the responsible party to present counter-evidence to challenge the presumption of guilt or the integrity of the sampling and analysis process.
G. participated in the competition riding L., which was selected for a medication control, resulting in the collection of urine and blood samples. The urine sample tested positive for isoxsuprine, and a confirmatory analysis of the B-sample confirmed the result. The FEI's Legal Commission disqualified G. and L., imposed a three-month suspension, and ordered the repayment of prize money and procedural costs. G. appealed to the CAS, arguing procedural irregularities, including delays in sample transportation and analysis, as well as the use of inadequate plastic containers for urine collection. The CAS dismissed these arguments, finding no evidence that the delays or container type compromised the samples' integrity. It noted that longer analysis intervals reduce the likelihood of detecting substances like isoxsuprine, so the delay did not harm G. The CAS also upheld the FEI's extension for analysis due to exceptional circumstances.
In a separate but related ruling, the CAS reviewed the FEI's initial determination that G. had deliberately doped the horse under Article 177, paragraph 5.2 of the FEI Rules. The CAS found insufficient evidence of intentional doping and reclassified the violation under Article 177, paragraph 5.3, which addresses cases where the responsible party failed to take necessary precautions to prevent the presence of prohibited substances. The CAS held G. responsible for not ensuring the horse's stable was secure, despite arguments about organizer negligence. Considering G.'s clean record and the unintentional nature of the violation, the CAS reduced the sanction to a one-month suspension and a fine of 1,000 Swiss francs, while upholding the disqualification and prize forfeiture.
The rulings underscore the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, emphasizing the responsibility of competitors to prevent violations, even in the absence of deliberate intent. The CAS balanced procedural fairness with the need to deter doping, reinforcing the importance of vigilance in maintaining the integrity of equestrian sports. The decisions highlight the limited grounds for appeal when prohibited substances are confirmed and the necessity for competitors to adhere to stringent anti-doping measures.