CAS 2022_A_9113 Nairo Alexander Quintana Roja vs UCI

CAS 2022/A/9113 Nairo Alexander Quintana Rojas v. Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI)

• Cycling
• Doping (tramadol)
• Nature and value of the UCI Medical Rules
• Validity of sanctions under the tramadol control
• Absence of an obligation of B-sample in tramadol control and use of a laboratory not accredited by WADA
• Right to be heard and tramadol control

1. The UCI Medical Rules are binding as part of the UCI Cycling Regulations. By requesting a license, any rider agrees to abide and be bound by these Rules and explicitly agrees and acknowledges that tramadol is prohibited in-competition. In this respect, any rider agrees to submit to in-competition tramadol control.

2. By virtue of their status, expertise and responsibility for protecting and reconciling the interests of all stakeholders in a particular sport, international federations such as the UCI enjoy a margin of appreciation in determining what factors are relevant and necessary to ensure the health and safety of all of their competitors and what regulatory measures are necessary in order to achieve this. The tramadol control within the UCI Medical Rules is expressed to be in response to UCI concern about the use of tramadol on individual riders and on the safety of the competitions generally. It is therefore open to the UCI to ban a substance on health and safety grounds and doing so is not in breach of the UCI’s obligations as a signatory of the World Anti-Doping Code. On the same note, the fact that tramadol controls are carried out by the ITA does not convert the UCI Medical Rules into a set of anti-doping rules. WADA itself has confirmed that the UCI Medical Rules are not anti-doping rules.

3. The Tramadol Control and the UCI Medical Rules do not contain any provision for a B sample. This follows the logic that the tramadol control is a medical control process and not anti-doping. Therefore is no obligation on the UCI to provide for a B sample analysis. Consequently, the absence of a B sample analysis does not render a tramadol control invalid. With the same logic, there is no requirement that the UCI uses only WADA-accredited laboratories for the testing and analysis under the tramadol control since this is not an anti-doping process.

4. The right to be heard is a fundamental and general principle which derives from the elementary rules of natural justice and due process. In accordance with article 133.070(a) of the UCI Medical Rules, in case of presence of tramadol, the UCI Medical Director “is competent to decide and sanction all cases” for a first infringement. In case of allegations of evading a tramadol sample collection, tampering or attempting to tamper with the tramadol sample collection process, refusing or failing to submit to tramadol sample collection or failure to report to the tramadol control station within the time limit provided under Article 13.3.067 of the UCI Medical Rules without compelling justification, the UCI Medical Director “may invite the rider to provide his/her position on the reported infringement”. This article does not impose an obligation on the UCI Medical Director to invite the rider to provide an explanation; by use of the word “may” it is obvious that UCI Medical Director has the discretion to do so but is not so obligated.

In August 2022 the International Cycling Union (UCI) reported a violation against the Colombian cyclist Nairo Alexander Quintana Roja after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Tramadol. Consequently for violating the UCI Medical Rules the UCI Medical Director decided on 17 August 2022 to impose on the Athlete a fine and for disqualification of his results.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the UCI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to declare that he had not committed a violation of the UCI Medical Rules.

The Athlete made the following assertions:

• This is an anti-doping issue and the World Anti-Doping Code is applicable.
• He could only file an appeal within the set deadline of 10 days instead of the 30 days period under the UCI Anti-Doping Rules.
• There was no information about the chain of custory and his samples were unaccountable between sample collection and arrival in the laboratory.
• There was no provision for testing of the B sample.
• The laboratory that tested his sample was not WADA accredited.
• His right to be heard was denied by the UCI Medical Director before rendering a decision.
• The testing method and testing results are invalid.

The UCI requested the Panel to dismiss the appeal and made the following contentions:

• The ban on Tramadol is not an anti-doping matter, yet a health and safety matter. 
• The UCI Medical Rules are applicable in this case not the World Anti-Doping Code.
• The UCI procedure for the chain of custody, the testing method and testing results were valid.
• WADA confirmed that the UCI Medical Rules are not anti-doping rules.
• The UCI Medical Rules have no provisions for the B sample analysis, nor for the chain of custody, nor for a hearing.
• Undisputed is that Tramadol was present in the Athlete's sample.

The Panel assessed and addressed the issues raised by the Parties and determines that:

• The UCI Medical Rules are binding as part of the UCI Cycling Regulations and are binding for the Athlete.
• Under the UCI Medical Rules indeed the Athlete is allowed only 10 days to respond.
• The shorter time period to appeal does not render the UCI Medical Rules invalid or ineffective.
• The UCI Medical Rules are not anti-doping rules and the World Anti-Doping Code is not applicable in this matter.
• There is no provision in the UCI Medical Rules for a B sample, nor analysis in a WADA accredited laboratory, nor a right to be heard.
• Tramadol and its metabolites were present in the Athlete's sample.
• The Athlete violated the UCI Medical Rules and the imposed fine and disqualification shall stand.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 June 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 26 August 2022 by Nairo Alexander Quintana Rojas is dismissed.

2.) The Award is pronounced without costs with the exception of the CAS Court Office fee, already paid by Mr Nairo Alexander Quintana Rojas, and which is retained by CAS.

3.) (…).

4.) All other and further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.