The case centers on an appeal by rider W. against a decision by the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) Judicial Committee concerning a doping violation involving the horse J. during a competition on July 11, 1992. The horse tested positive for clenbuterol, a prohibited substance that affects the respiratory system. As the person responsible for the horse under FEI regulations, W. initially requested a counter-analysis but later withdrew it, leading the FEI Judicial Committee to disqualify him and the horse, impose a three-month suspension, a CHF 1,000 fine, and additional costs. W. appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that neither he nor anyone associated with the horse had administered clenbuterol, suggesting instead that a third party might have been responsible. He highlighted his good faith, the owners' clean record in equestrian sports, and the lack of financial incentive to dope an average-performing horse.
The CAS reviewed the case under FEI regulations, which had been amended in 1992 to align with International Olympic Committee principles. The revised rules established a presumption of deliberate intent to affect performance when a prohibited substance is detected, placing the burden of proof on the person responsible to demonstrate otherwise. The CAS found that W. failed to provide concrete evidence to rebut this presumption or prove that the substance resulted from legitimate treatment. While W. presented arguments about his and the owners' integrity, these were deemed insufficient under the strict liability framework of FEI rules. The CAS upheld the FEI's decision, emphasizing that unsubstantiated claims of good faith cannot override the presumption of deliberate doping.
W., an experienced rider with over eight years in equestrianism and a clean record, contested the decision by arguing there was no deliberate attempt to enhance performance. However, the CAS noted that under Article 177.5.2 of the FEI General Regulations, the presence of a prohibited substance automatically presumes deliberate intent unless proven otherwise. The rider's arguments about his and the owners' lack of motive were dismissed as irrelevant, as they did not address the legal presumption or provide evidence of legitimate treatment. The CAS stressed that accepting such unproven claims would weaken anti-doping efforts.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the FEI's penalties, including disqualification, suspension, fines, and costs, reinforcing the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations. The ruling underscores the importance of robust evidence to contest doping allegations and the stringent enforcement of anti-doping measures in equestrian sports. The appeal, lodged on November 13, 1992, was formally received but dismissed on all substantive grounds. The case highlights the challenges faced by athletes in disproving doping allegations under strict liability frameworks.