In March 2009 the International Skating Union (ISU) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Claudia Pechstein after her samples, collected in February 2009, showed abnormal blood values, due to the use of a prohibited substance and/or a prohibited method, i.e. blood doping.
After a hearing in June 2009, the ISU Disciplinary Commission decided on 1 July 2009:
1.) Claudia Pechstein is declared responsihle for an Anti-Doping violation under Article 2.2 of the ISU ADR by using the prohibited method of blood doping.
2.) The results obtained by Claudia Pechstein in the 500m and 3000m races at the World Allround Speed Skating Championships on February 7, 2009, are disqualified and her points, prizes and medals forfeited.
3.) A 2 year period of ineligibility, beginning on February 9, 2009, is imposed on Claudia Pechstein.
4.) The Deutsche Eisschnelllauf-Gemeinschaft e. V. shall pay to the ISU the costs to be determined.
5.) Each party bears its own costs of proceedings.
On 21 July 2009 the Athlete and DESG appealed the ISU decision of 1 July 2009 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). However on 25 November 2009 the CAS Panel decided (CAS 2009/A/1912-1913) to uphold the ISU decision of 1 July 2009.
Hereafter the Athlete appealed the CAS-decision of 25 November 2009 with the Swiss Federal Court. The Athlete submitted arguments related to the composition of the CAS Panel, her right to be heard, equal treatment and Ordere Public.
After the Athlete’s application the Swiss Federal Court granted the Athlete’s participation to the training and competition for the Salt Lake City skating World Cup in December 2009. Ultimately the Swiss Federal Court decides on 10 February 2010 to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal.
The Swiss Court determines in this case:
1.) The Federal Tribunal reiterated that the judiciary review it exercises as to international arbitral awards issued in Switzerland is limited and the Court is not inclined to extend it.
2.) The Federal Tribunal devoted some interesting developments to the independence of the CAS and confirmed its previous decisions as to that issue, despite the criticism expressed by some commentators.
3.) The Federal Tribunal had to deal with the argument of a public hearing within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) and, whilst confirming that arbitral proceedings do not require a public hearing, the Court suggested that, should an athlete request it, it would be desirable for a public hearing to be held.
4.) The rest of the opinion is devoted to various arguments relating to the right to be heard or to an alleged violation of public policy.
