The case involves Brazilian cyclist Kleber Da Silva Ramos, who committed an anti-doping rule violation during the 2016 Rio Olympics. On August 4, 2016, Ramos underwent an out-of-competition doping control, which revealed the presence of methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA), a prohibited substance under the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List, in both his urine and blood samples. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) filed an application with the Court of Arbitration for Sport Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) on August 11, 2016, following the adverse findings. This was the second such case against Ramos, as a prior case (CAS AD 16/003) had already been initiated on August 9, 2016, for the same substance in his urine samples. Ramos was provisionally suspended, and the second case (CAS AD 16/006) was referred to the same panel handling the first case.
On August 18, 2016, the panel issued its final decision in the first case, confirming the anti-doping rule violation. Ramos was declared ineligible to compete in any remaining events at the Rio Games, excluded from the competition, and his accreditation was withdrawn. The matter was referred to the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) for further sanctions. The panel then addressed the second case, which had been suspended pending the resolution of the first. The IOC sought confirmation of another violation and a referral to the UCI for additional sanctions. Ramos was given the opportunity to respond but chose not to submit further arguments, reserving his right to present evidence in future UCI Tribunal proceedings.
The panel confirmed its jurisdiction under the IOC Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) and the Olympic Charter, which delegates authority to the CAS ADD for doping-related matters during the Olympics. The applicable law under the IOC ADR establishes strict liability for athletes regarding prohibited substances, meaning intent or fault need not be proven for a violation to be established. The standard of proof required the IOC to demonstrate the violation to the panel’s comfortable satisfaction, a threshold higher than a balance of probability but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ultimately, the panel found Ramos guilty of a second anti-doping rule violation based on the presence of CERA in his blood sample, reinforcing the sanctions already imposed in the first case. The matter was referred to the UCI for further disciplinary action. The decision underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, holding athletes accountable for any prohibited substances found in their systems, regardless of intent. The case highlights the established procedures for handling anti-doping violations, emphasizing the athlete's right to a hearing and the delegation of sanctioning authority to the relevant governing body. The panel's ruling was based on the evidence presented and the lack of rebuttal from the athlete, resulting in a clear finding of violation and subsequent disciplinary measures.