The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a case involving SJ, a horse rider, and the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) concerning doping violations. The case stemmed from a competition held in September 1991, where SJ's horse, P., tested positive for prohibited substances, including isoxsuprine, testosterone, and its metabolites. The FEI informed SJ of the positive results in October 1991, and a counter-analysis confirmed the findings. SJ initially denied administering any banned substances, directing inquiries to his veterinarian, Dr. S., who later admitted the horse had been on a prophylactic isoxsuprine treatment since summer 1991, with doses discontinued six days before competitions to avoid residual effects. The CAS noted inconsistencies in SJ's statements, undermining his credibility.
The FEI's Legal Commission disqualified SJ and his horse in March 1992, imposing a four-month suspension and financial penalties. SJ appealed, arguing the analysis of sample A exceeded the 21-day deadline under FEI rules, as results were reported on October 16, 1991, rather than by October 7. He also contested the timing of sample collection, claiming it occurred two hours post-competition, potentially allowing manipulation. Additionally, SJ argued there was no medical reason for the horse to be treated with isoxsuprine during the competition, as the treatment had allegedly ended on September 3, 1991. The FEI rejected these arguments, upholding its decision.
The CAS found the appeal admissible under FEI statutes, applying Swiss law as the governing framework. The tribunal confirmed the presence of prohibited substances in both samples, with isoxsuprine alone warranting sanctions. While testosterone and its metabolites were detected, they were not penalized due to potential natural production in geldings. The CAS ruled that under FEI rules, the mere presence of banned substances mandates automatic disqualification, rendering SJ's medical arguments irrelevant. The tribunal dismissed SJ's claim about the delayed analysis, accepting the lab's justification of "unusual results" as valid under exceptional circumstances. It also found the sample collection occurred within the permitted two-hour window, rejecting SJ's timing argument.
The CAS emphasized SJ's duty as a rider to ensure his horse was free of prohibited substances, regardless of intent. His negligence in verifying the horse's condition and his contradictory statements—initially denying treatment, then admitting to it—further weakened his case. The tribunal upheld the FEI's decision, confirming the disqualification and associated penalties. The ruling reinforced the strict application of anti-doping regulations to maintain fair competition and horse welfare, underscoring the principle that riders must exercise utmost diligence to prevent violations, whether intentional or negligent. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sanctions were upheld.