The case centers on a dispute between German cross-country skier Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle and the International Ski Federation (FIS) over a start prohibition imposed due to her elevated hemoglobin (Hb) levels. The prohibition, based on FIS Anti-Doping Rules, prevented her from competing for five days, including an event at the 2006 Turin Winter Olympics. Sachenbacher-Stehle and the German Ski Association (DSV) sought arbitration from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division, arguing that her high Hb levels were natural and requesting an exemption from the FIS Hb rule. The FIS had previously denied similar requests in 2003, 2004, and 2005, maintaining that her Hb levels, while slightly elevated, did not meet the criteria for a dispensation under Rule FIS B.4.8.
The FIS's blood-profiling program, which monitors athletes' Hb levels, revealed significant variability in Sachenbacher-Stehle's readings, with a peak of 15.7 mg/ml in December 2001 and an average of 14.8 mg/ml over four years. The FIS argued this inconsistency undermined claims of a naturally high Hb level. The athlete's representative, Dr. Ernst Jakob, presented data supporting her case, but the FIS contended its own data was more reliable. The CAS panel declined to overturn the FIS's decision, stating it was not their role to substitute medical expertise for that of the FIS's experts. The panel emphasized that the prohibition was a health measure, not a sanction, as her Hb readings of 16.5 and 16.4 mg/ml on February 9, 2006, exceeded the 16.0 mg/ml threshold for female athletes.
Dr. Jakob further challenged the FIS Hb limits as arbitrary, arguing they should not apply to athletes with naturally high levels. The panel rejected this, noting the limits were established in collaboration with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and were not arbitrary. Dr. Jakob also asserted the athlete was healthy and fit to compete, but this relied on the unproven assumption of naturally elevated Hb levels. The panel found no grounds to overturn the FIS decision, though it acknowledged the rules could be more precise and highlighted procedural issues in sample collection at the Olympics, where blood and urine tests were not properly coordinated.
Ultimately, the CAS ad hoc Division upheld the FIS's prohibition, reinforcing the federation's authority in enforcing its health and competition rules. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to established medical and procedural guidelines while suggesting areas for improvement in rule clarity and testing procedures. The ruling affirmed the FIS's stance and denied the athlete's request to cancel the start prohibition.