The case involves Ludger Beerbaum's appeal against a decision by the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) Judicial Committee, which disqualified him and his horse, Goldfever, from the 2004 Athens Olympic Games due to a positive doping test for Betamethasone. The FEI upheld the disqualification under strict liability rules, despite the substance being used for legitimate medical treatment of the horse's eczema and not for performance enhancement. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel reviewed the case and affirmed the FEI's decision, emphasizing the principle of strict liability in doping cases. The panel highlighted that Article 146.2 of the FEI General Regulations, which allows for termination of proceedings if no prohibited substance is present, must be interpreted narrowly. Strict liability under Article 146.1 means disqualification is automatic upon detection of a prohibited substance, regardless of intent or performance impact. The panel rejected arguments that the substance's therapeutic use or lack of competitive advantage should exempt Beerbaum from disqualification, as this would undermine the strict liability principle.
Goldfever had been treated with Soderm, a Betamethasone-containing cream, for eczema prior to and during the Olympics. The treatment was administered openly but without formal authorization, as Beerbaum and his groom believed the small quantities used would not trigger a positive test. The FEI's laboratory confirmed the presence of Betamethasone, a prohibited substance graded as having performance-affecting potential. The FEI's Veterinary Department emphasized that Betamethasone is not a threshold substance and its use during competitions remains unauthorized even under future regulation changes. The CAS panel concluded that the interests of the sport, including maintaining integrity and uniformity in anti-doping enforcement, outweigh individual circumstances. The decision to disqualify Beerbaum and annul the German team's gold medal was upheld, reinforcing the strict liability principle in equestrian sports.
Key witness testimonies were presented, including Frederick Sluyter, head of the FEI Veterinary Department, who stated that Betamethasone is not a threshold substance under FEI regulations, and its use during events is unauthorized due to its potential performance-enhancing effects. Dr. Marianne Sloet van Oldruitenborgh-Oosterbaan, an equine medicine expert, supported this view, noting that corticosteroids like Betamethasone affect all body systems and that alternative treatments for conditions like eczema exist without prohibited substances. For the appellant, Professor Dr. M. Kietzmann, a pharmacology expert, argued that topical application of Betamethasone in small doses would not systemically affect a horse’s performance. Beerbaum acknowledged his responsibility for his groom’s failure to seek authorization but maintained there was no intent to breach regulations.
The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction based on FEI regulations and the Olympic Charter, which designate it as the final authority for sports-related disputes. The applicable law was determined to be FEI regulations, supplemented by Swiss law where necessary. The FEI’s statutes and general regulations emphasize fair competition, horse welfare, and strict medication controls. Key provisions include the responsibility of the competitor (Person Responsible) for any actions involving the horse, including stable management, and automatic disqualification for prohibited substance use unless authorized. The case highlights the tension between regulatory enforcement and practical considerations in equestrian sports, particularly regarding medication use and welfare. The CAS’s role in adjudicating such disputes ensures adherence to established rules while considering expert testimony and contextual factors.
The Judicial Committee identified a procedural error that compromised the rights of the rider, leading to the disregard of the B-sample analysis and the entire urine test, resulting in the termination of proceedings under Article 146.2 of the FEI Rules. The Panel emphasized the importance of the strict liability rule in anti-doping efforts, noting that disqualification is the standard consequence of a violation, regardless of intent or performance impact. The Panel rejected the idea that disqualification could be appealed on grounds of lack of intent or competitive advantage, as this would undermine the strict liability framework. They highlighted that exceptions to these rules must be narrowly construed, in line with legal principles, and noted that therapeutic use exemptions provide a structured pathway for legitimate medical treatments, which should not be bypassed.
The appellant argued that the teams who would benefit from the German team losing their gold medal—the US and Swedish teams—had no desire to gain an advantage not earned through their equestrian skills. The FEI Judicial Committee acknowledged the potential injustice in their decision but felt compelled to uphold it. The panel agreed