You are on page 1of 71

?----------------------- Page 1----------------------DISCIPLINARY BOARD AGAINST DOPING

DECISION January 30, 2013

made by:

Martine Soloviev, President referee, Dr. Fernand RIES, referee assessor, Claude FEIEREISEN, referee assessor, Franz Scherer, Registrar, within the framework of an offense prosecuted against doping

SCHLECK Frank, born April 15, 1980, residing in L-5657 Mondorf-les-Bains, 4, rue des Vignes,

1.A By a letter dated 31 July 2012, the Luxembourg Anti-Doping Agency (Hereinafter "the ALAD") referred to the Disciplinary Board against Doping (hereinafter after "Disciplinary Board") to hear and determine the violation anti-doping rule allegedly committed by the runner-cyclist Frank SCHLECK under Article 4.1 of the Anti-Doping Code ALAD, the substance in question is the Xipamide is a specified substance under Article 10 of the same Code.

{0}{/0}{1}2. {/1} irman of the Disciplinary Board has

Vice-President in the absence of the Cha

two arbitrators appointed assessors.


By letter of 2 August 2012, ALAD and Frank were SCHLECK invited to attend a non-public hearing Council Discipline is 29 August 2012. Copy of the summons has been sent for information to the Luxembourg Cycling Sports Federation (hereinafte

r "The FSCL").


At that time, ALAD by comparing MOUSTY Raymond, a member of Board and Frank SCHLECK, assisted by his attorney, Maître Albert RODESCH were heard in their abilities and explanations. The case was postponed to the hearing on 8 October 2012,

to SCHLECK allow Frank to file expert reports him to ensure its defense.


By letter dated October 1, 2012, Mr. Albert RODESCH sought remission of

the case, his client was not able to transmit the elements File talk he wanted to see for his defense.


The ALAD not opposed to handing the case was reattached to October 15 2012 By letter of 4 October 2012, Frank and ALAD

SCHLECK were reconvened to appear at the hearing of the Council Discipline until 15 October 2012. Copy of the summons also was sent for information to the FSCL and CYCLING UNION INTERNATIONAL (hereinafter "UCI").


At that time, ALAD by comparing MOUSTY Raymond, a member of Board and Frank SCHLECK, assisted by his agents, Master Albert and Master RODESCH Patricia Sondhi, lawyers Court, residing in Luxembourg and Master Antonio Rigozzi, lawyer, residing in Geneva (Switzerland) were heard in their ways and explanati

ons. At this hearing, witnesses Maxime Montfort and Dr. Laurent Rivier

were heard separately, in their oral statements, after the oath prescribed by law. The UCI was represented by Mrs

Dominique Leroux. The case was adjourned sine die, in order to allow ALAD to proceed against a second opinion.


Following the tabling of cons-trained expertise by Dr. Hans Geyer and memory ALAD dated November 29, 2012, Frank and ALAD SCHLECK were summoned to appear at the hearing of the Council Discipline shall be 19 December 2012. Copy of the summons also was sent for information to the FSCL and the UCI.


At that time, the ALAD by comparing Mousty Raymond was heard in its requisitions.


Frank attended SCHLECK its agents, Maître Albert and RODESCH Master Patricia Sondhi, lawyers, residing in Luxembourg and Master Antonio Rigozzi, lawyer, residing in Geneva (Switzerland) and th

e UCI comparing by Dominique Leroux were heard in their means and explanations. 11. On this, the Disciplinary Board took the matter under advisement and i ssued to hearing date, the delivery date was set, this



Frank SCHLECK participated as a professional cyclist and runnerteam member RADIOSHACK NISSAN UCI PRO TREK Team ("NTR") in the Tour de France which began on 30 June 2012 in Liège.


This race is included in the UCI international calendar.

14. At the end of the 13th stage of the July 14, 2012, Frank was subjected t o SCHLECK

doping control initiated by the UCI arrival at Cap d'Agde.


Under the heading "drugs" form of control, the rider indicated taking Viani disc, Ventolin and Advantan cream.


Sample A with the number 2684655 was analyzed by the Department of analysis of the French Agency for the fight against doping, located in

ChatenayMalabry, which is accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (hereinaft er after "AMA"). The examination of this sample showed a test result abnormal due to the presence of Xipamide, substance assimilated to diuretics included in the list of prohibited substances and methods Co de World Anti-Doping WADA 2012 in category S5 Diuretics and and other Masking Agents considered a substance called specified.

17. d

The analysis report of the sample A of 17 July 2012 has been communicate by the Department analyzes both the UCI and to WADA.


By letter dated July 17, 2012 informed the UCI rider positive result the analysis performed on the sample 14 July 2012 and the right to require the opening and analysis of the B sample


Frank SCHLECK decided to immediately discontinue participation in the

Tour de France.


By letter dated 18 July 2012 the FSCL was informed by the UCI result abnormal sample A by the presence of Xipamide and his right to be represented at the opening of the B sample in case the runner would demand.


July 20, 2012 Frank SCHLECK, accompanied by his lawyer Albert RODESCH attended the unsealing and analysis of the B sample The cons-analysis of this sample confirmed the result of the sample and thus the presence of Xipamide.

22. ysis e

By letter of the same date, the FSCL was informed of the result of anal B Sample confirms the presence of the prohibited substance and Xipamid hence a violation of Articles 21.1 and 21.2 of the Anti-Doping Regulat

ions UCI. (Hereinafter "RAD"). Moreover, the UCI announced that it would re quire of FSCL incessantly to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Frank SCHLECK under Article 234 RAD.


Reasons legal assistance.









By letter dated 25 July 2012 the FSCL forwarded the file receive d from the UCI ALAD, in accordance with article 30 of its Statutes Chapter IX.

24. The requested State Party shall execute the request for mutual legal assistance as soon as possible and shall take as full account as possible of any

deadlines suggested by the requesting State Party and fo r which reasons are given, preferably in the request. The requested State Par ty shall respond to reasonable requests by the requesting State Party on progress o f its handling of the request. The requesting State Party shall promptly inf orm the requested State Party when the assistance sought is no longer required. By letter dated 31 July 2012 UCI has formally requested the FSCL opening of disciplinary proceedings against Frank in SCHLECK accordance with Articles 249 to 348 RAD anti-doping rules of the UCI u nder sections 21.1 and 21.2 RAD having been raped.

25. s

By an application dated 31 July 2012, ALAD seized in accordance with it Anti-Doping Code, the Disciplinary Board to hear and determine the anti-doping rule violation committed by the Athlete.


By letter of 2 August 2012, the Disciplinary Board convened the Sports and ALAD to attend a non-public hearing set for Aug. 29 2012 to hear and determine violations of anti-doping rule above.

27. he

Frank SCHLECK affiliated with the FSCL duly summoned to appear before t Disciplinary Board, assisted by his lawyer Albert RODESCH.


The Disciplinary Board was properly seized pursuant to Articles 67 and 70, paragraph 1, of the Statute of Olympic and Sports Committee Luxembourg. (Hereinafter "COSL").


The composition of the Board of the Disciplinary Board is to Article 69 of the Statute.


Accused person and ALAD were regularly convened by the

Disciplinary Board and the deadlines provided for in Article 70, parag raph 2, of the Statutes above have been met.


It follows that the rules of procedure have been met. II) VOLUNTARY INTERVENTION UCI

32. By letters dated 20 August 2012 addressed to the FSCL and 27 August 20 12 addressed to Disciplinary Board, the UCI has sought to intervene in the proceedings and exercise its rights under sections 262 and 264 RAD. Especially it intends to give its opinion within the prosecution by ALAD and ask if a particular sanction is imposed, it wishes in writing while reserving the right to be represented the hearing under section 263 RAD.

33. roux the

At the hearing on 15 October 2012, the UCI represented by Dominique Le alleged that, pursuant to Article 15.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code, results management and hearing process within the organization Doping who initiated and directed the taking of the sample and are gov

erned by the rules of procedure of the organization. The inspection was carr ied out initiative of the UCI through an international cycling race contained timetable, so that performance management belongs to him. It

delegate the initiation of disciplinary proceedings under the FSCL Article 234 of the RAD.


ALAD as Frank SCHLECK have not opposed the intervention voluntary participation of the UCI hearing procedure before the Disciplinary Board.


Under Article 15.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code, results management and the hearing process if doping violation within Doping Organization who initiated and directed the sample collection

and are governed by the rules of procedure of the organization. In thi s case, the performance management belonged to the UCI which initiated controls doping during the 2012 Tour de France which is also a race international contained in the UCI calendar.


The UCI as international federation has the right to raise Appeals against decisions of the Disciplinary Board and under both

Articles 71-1) and 72-1) of the Code of ALAD 75 paragraph 1 and 76 par agraph 1 of the Statutes of the Luxembourg Olympic and Sports.


The Disciplinary Board believes that the quality of third party UCI justifies its intervention in the proceedings. III) APPLICABLE RULES


1) Arguments of the UCI


By letter dated 27 August 2012 addressed to the Disciplinary Board by

the President UCI and conclusions of December 12, 2012 filed by Mr. Philippe VERBIEST, the UCI maintains that the regulations applicable to the sub stance, is The UCI Anti-Doping Rules and in accordance with the provisions of Article 257 RAD.

39. gulations

SCHLECK Frank holds a UCI license and therefore accepted the statutes and regulations and in particular the RAD (article 1.1.001 Re UCI Sport cyclist).

40. l in

He provided the sample containing the banned substance during a contro part of a listed event on the international calendar of the UCI and therefore under the sole direction of the latter. Being a manifestatio

n international doping control and the consequences to namely the doping violation, shall be governed exclusively by the RAD (Article 4 RAD).


According to World Anti-Doping Code (the "CMA") and particular Articles 15.1 and 15.3, performance management and training discipline within the Anti-Doping Organization initiated and directed sample collection, so in this case the UCI. At the end of the management results, when the UCI alleges the commission of a violation

of doping by a licensee, the RAD provides that the UCI asks the National Federation of the licensee to initiate disciplinary proceedin gs against it by entrusting this responsibility to the Federation National licensed under sections 234 and 249 RAD.


In this case, the UCI has by letter dated July 31, 2012 asked the FSCL initiate disciplinary proceedings under FDR. The fact that the FSCL would delegate this power to the Disciplinary Board under its bylaws, not imply that the substance there is in place under the Code National ALAD. So if the licensee was heard and the case handled by the hearing body competent according to the statutory provisions of th

e national federation, the FSCL be responsible for ensuring that the ins tance

Hearing external complies with RAD while taking account of the rule s this procedural hearing panel.

2) Arguments of ALAD


The ALAD alleges that as CMA urges the international federations (Article 20.3 CMA) as NADOs (Article 20.5 CMA) to "adopt and implement the principles and rules consistent with the Code. " Both the RAD code ALAD were certified comply with the WADA Code. The ALAD considers it appropriate to app

ly the National code. Luxembourg, like Switzerland and the United States centralized power to punish offenses doping within a single national body, in this case the Disciplinary Board, a body interdisciplinary entirely independent of national sports federatio ns. Thus the FSCL provides in Article 30 of its Statute, other federati ons national affiliated COSL providing a statutory provision identical it yields to the power of ALAD establish doping and the Council

discipline against doping, established by COSL, the power to sancti on and without distinction between national and international events.

44. Article 64 of the Statute of the Council of COSL established discip line and Article 66 gives the mission to "know of doping offenses such that these rules are set in Anti-Doping Code enacted by ALAD. " Article 15.3 of the CMA invoked by the UCI would be neutral on the question of substantive rules, Article 7 is on performance management, provided by the UCI, and section 8 making certain procedural requir ements for the hearings, which according to the RAD within the federation national or organization authorized by it. Assuming that the rules background are also covered, Article 15.3 does not establish any ru le CMA rules of the International Federation compared to the body doping which the sanctioning power has been delegated.


In addition, the Code of ALAD has been certified by the AMA and CMA Article 15.4 of the CMA urges all signatories, therefore at UCI, recognize and respect the decisions issued by the competent authori

ty of a other signatory delivered in full compliance with the CMA. The CMA as such is not directly applicable in the absence of national measures transposition although the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausan ne (hereinafter "the 1 CAS ") has applied this code in the case of Gasquet.

1 CAS 2009 / A / 1926 3) Arguments Frank SCHLECK

46. ntests

Frank SCHLECK admits the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board and co not only as a runner, a licensed UCI, he accepted the UCI antidoping regulations applicable in the context of its participat

ion in all cycling activities on the international calendar of the UCI. It not oppose the application of the RAD-based CMA provided the requirement of the written form of the acceptance of the provisional s uspension under the FDR, not the code ALAD, it does not enforceable.



The statutes of the FSCL have in Article 30 paragraph 1 that:

"The Federation, without prejudice to the obligations arising from its membership International Federation governing the sport, prohibits the use by sportsmen and athletes administration of substances or methods doping.

In the fight against doping, the Federation submitted with all member companies and its licensors all the authority of the Agency Doping Luxembourg. It recognizes that the right body ..... conduct proceedings before the Disciplinary Board charged against Dopi ng to decide, if appropriate, sanctions, provided that the proceedings ar e conducted

in Luxembourg, including the right to appeal against a judgment of first instance.

Federation gives the Disciplinary Board against Doping appointed for th at effect by COSL, the power to deal with breaches of anti-doping matter including the preceding paragraph, subject to powers of the Court of Arbitration for Sport Olympic Committee International athletes and international events within its jurisdiction. '


Therefore accepts the FSCL ALAD as prosecution authority for Doping Disciplinary Board recognizes the power of COSL decision regarding doping offenses and this subject its obligations arising from its membership in the International Feder

ation case the UCI.


Article 1 of the Statutes of the UCI gives it the role of "association

national federations of cycling. " Article 6 of the Constitution stipu lates the above its first paragraph that "federations undertake because of their affil iation to

comply with the rules and regulations of the UCI and any decision in accordance with these. Similarly, they undertake to comply statutes, regulations and decisions of the UCI by any person concerned . ' Paragraph 6 provides that "The rules and regulations of federations ca n go against those of the UCI. In case of any discrepancy, only the stat utes and

the UCI rules will apply. Statutes and regulations must contain an express clause in case of conflict with the statutes and re gulations UCI, only the latter will apply. '

50. I

In addition, all athletes licensed in the member federations of the UC are submitted to the UCI Cycling Regulations. Indeed, any person

taking a license from the UCI undertakes thereby to participate in eve nts cyclists respecting the rules and regulations of the UCI (Article 1.1. 004 UCI Cycling Regulations). Participation in a cycling event, in any reason whatsoever, constitutes acceptance of all regulations which find application (Article 5 of the Preliminary Provisions UCI Cycling Regulations). And any licensee agrees in particular submit to doping controls and accepts, for doping, jurisdiction of the CAS as a last resort. ns of the UCI According to the Regulatio

Sport Cycling "license is an ID that confirms the commitment of the licensee to comply with the statutes and regulations which auth orizes participate in cycling events "(article 1.1.001). In particular, "no may participate in a cycling event organized or controlled by the UCI the UCI Continental Confederations, federations members of the UCI or their affiliates, if not licensee requirements "(Article 1.1.002 F 1).


At the time, Frank was an athlete SCHLECK dismissed in its national federation, the FSCL, which is itself a member of the UCI. The cycling event in which he participated, the "Tour de France", was

organized and controlled by the UCI. He held a UCI license, which allowed him to

participate in such a competition.

No 3386 UCI license issued on 1

January 2012 by the FSCL under articles 1.1.011 and the following UCI regulations stipulates that "The holder adheres to fair play and Ethics of cycling and submits to the UCI regulations and national federations. ts blood provided therein and the exclusive jurisdiction of the CAS. ' It accepts the anti-doping controls and tes

52. ion of y

The contents of the license signed by Frank SCHLECK goes in the direct article 1.1.004 of the UCI Cycling Regulations which provides that "An person applying for a license commits thus to respect the constitution

and regulations of the UCI, the UCI continental confederations and member federations of the UCI and participate in cycling events

a fair and sporting manner. She agrees to respect the obligations referred to in article 1.1.023.

Once the license application and provided that the license is issued, the applicant is responsible for infractions they commit and subject to the jurisdiction of the disciplinary proceedings.

Any licensee remains subject to the jurisdiction of the disciplinary p roceedings responsible for acts committed while he was the applicant or holder a license, even if the proceedings are commenced or continued after th e when the person has no license. "


The article 1.1.023 of the UCI Regulations even which it refers, provi

des the standard form of application for a license that UCI has overleaf:

"(...) {0}{/0}{1}2. nd regulations of the UCI

{/1} I agree to abide by the rules a

International, its Continental Confederations and its federations national.

I have read or have had the opportunity to read these statutes and regulations.

I will participate in cycling competitions or events in a way fair and sporting.

I shall submit to disciplinary measures taken against me and shall tak e any appeals and litigation before the authorities provided for in regulations. I accept the Court Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as the only appellate jurisdiction in cases and in the manner prescribed by the regulations.

I agree that the CAS decides in the last instance and that its decisio ns shall be final and without appeal. ubmit any dispute With these reservations, I will s

possible with the UCI exclusively to the tribunals UCI headquarters.

I agree to submit to and be bound by the anti-doping rules of the UCI the provisions of the World Anti-Doping Code and International Standar ds which the anti-doping rules of the UCI and the references doping regulations of other competent bodies according

regulations of the UCI and the World Anti-Doping Code, insofar as they are comply with this Code. "


Moreover, Article 1 of Chapter 1), entitled "Scope" of

RAD provides that the anti-doping rules RAD apply to all dismissed.

55' control is

It should be remembered that it is delegated by the UCI and under its the national federation manages the procedure of First Instance. This

that in its letter of 31 July 2012, the UCI has asked the FSCL under section 234 RAD disciplinary proceedings against Frank SCHLECK. The FSCL having given under Article 30 paragraph 2 of i ts statutes, the power to direct the ALAD proceedings before the Board of Discipline leader for breaches of anti-doping, this prosecuting authority seized by an application dated 24 July 2012, the Council Discipline to hear and determine the anti-doping rule violation committed by the athlete.

56. ight e. In

The Disciplinary Board certainly applies its own rules of procedure (r formal), but in substance (substantive law), only the RAD is applicabl effect of section 257 RAD provides:

"The hearing treats the case under these Anti-Doping Rules [Those of RAD], to the exclusion of all other rules. When federations

National entrust cases to a hearing panel outside, it undertakes to apply the Anti-Doping Rules by accepting hear the case. It is up to national federations to ensure that instances of external hearing comply with these rules doping. "

Section 258 RAD added:

"The proceedings before the hearing is held in accordance with rules of procedure of the hearing body, taking into account following articles. "

57. FDR

Regulations issued by the UCI and in particular the provisions of the must be applicable in the context of prosecution by ALAD against SCHLECK Frank, which has voluntarily submitted by the acceptance and use of its international license, appl

ication that it does not contest also. This is justified also by the fact the Tour de France is an international event listed in calendar of the UCI and the doping was carried out under its sole Direction

58. ode

It should be noted that the provisions of the UCI RAD are similar to C Doping ALAD while they faithfully repeat those issued by WADA in the CMA.


A: Violation of Article 21.1 by the presence of RAD Xipamide, specified substance.

59. It is alleged that Frank SCHLECK affiliated with the CSLF to have viol ated the provision under which the mere "presence of a substance Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a sample provided by the runner is a doping violation "provision contained in RAD section 21.1, which corresponds to Article 2.1 CMA.

60. on

Frank SCHLECK does not dispute the facts that are namely the alleged presence of Xipamide in his body during an inspecti Doping performed July 14, 2012. He does not deny the progress doping control, the validity of analyzes of samples and therefore regular monitoring and subsequent proceedings including management results by the UCI. The doping violation within the meaning of Article 1.21 RAD is recognized.

61. h rider

Article RAD specifies in particular the responsibility of eac to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his body. The Riders are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Therefore, it is not necessary to prove intent, the fault, negligence or knowing Use on the part of the rider to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 21.1 RAD. By

62. e

Under the heading "Warning" on the same article, it is stated that "th Riders must refrain from using any substance, food or drink that they ignore the composition. It should be noted that the

composition indicated on a product is not always exhaustive. Product may contain prohibited substances not listed in the pa s composition. '

63. hed by the

Article states that RAD evidence of a violation doping within the meaning of Article 21.1 RAD is sufficiently establis presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in A sample of a runner and, in case of analysis of sample B, by the fact the latter confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in sample A rider.

64. This provision establishes the principle of responsibility called "obj ective" or "Strict liability" that the mere presence of a prohibited substance in the removal of a body cyclist sufficient to establish a violation of doping. This principle was confirmed by the case law of Court of Arbitration Sport.2


In this case, the analysis of samples A and B performed in the doping of 14 July 2012 have revealed that Xipamide is a prohibited substance under the "Prohibited List 2012" the CMA which is part of the RAD under Article 29.

66. nts

The Xipamide is included in the class "S5. Diuretics and other age masking "of the" Prohibited List 2012 "and should therefore be call

ed specified substance.


The presence of a prohibited substance in the case of a Xipamide

sample provided by a rider is therefore a breach of the rules doping (Article 21.1 RAD).


Under section 293 RAD, such a violation is punishable by a suspension period of 2 years in the case such as the present one first doping violation, unless the conditions to eliminate or reduce the period of suspension such as laid down in Articles 295 to 304 RAD are met.


Violation of Article 21.1 RAD is established and Frank must SCHLECK incur the penalty of suspension for a period of two (2) years.

B: Elimination or reduction of the period of suspension for Specified Substances under Article 295 RAD.


1) Arguments Frank SCHLECK


Frank SCHLECK claiming the benefit of Article 295 contained in RAD chapter "Elimination or Reduction of Period of Ineligibility specified substances under special circumstances "and has that:

2 cf. including CAS 2002/A/483 Demetis / FINA, CAS 2003/A/484 Vencill c / USADA, CAS 2004/A/690 Hipperdinger c / ATP CAS 2005/A/830 Squizzato c / FINA, CAS 2005/A/922, 923, 926 UCI & WADA c / Hondo & Swiss Olympic;

"When a rider or a racer support personnel can establish how a Specified Substance entered his body or came possession and that such Specified Substance was not intended to improve sports performance of the rider or mask the use of a performance-enhancing substance, the period of suspension for first violation stipulated in Art icle 293 will be replaced by the foll owing:

at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility future events, and a maximum two-year ban.

To justify any elimination or reduction, the licensee must produce corroborating evidence in addition to his word which establishes to the full satisfaction of the hearing panel the absence of intent to enhance performance sports or mask the use of a substance improving Performance The degree of fault of the licensee e st the criteria taken into account for assessing any reduction of the period of suspension. "


He argues that he did not intentionally taken Xipamide.

Indeed, it

would be scientifically indisputable that it is a substance that can not hide effectively enhancing substances performance given the current effectiveness of detection techniques laboratories accredited by WADA. The Xipamide and also taking diuretics to mask doping product is obsolete.


In support of his assertions Frank SCHLECK pays an expert report Dr. Laurent Rivier prepared dated 10 September 2012 which confirms Xipamide that is less effective than a diuretic as by other eg, furosemide which have a diuretic effect more powerful.

73. to

The doping of 14 July 2012 did not reveal any other prohibited substance, such as the presence of EPO, which is according experts the product through its influence on the number of red blood c

ells doping is most effective in endurance sports. In fact, during a blood test done the day after the urine test positive for Xipamide, the hemoglobin found was 13.3 g /% and the hematocrit of 40%. Such values ??are rather low and away from those that would be found on a runner using EPO. The expert Paul Scott in his report of October 8, 2012 would have concluded that the data se t blood collected in the framework of the "biological passport" Frank SCHLECK, show that changes quite normal and therefore the absence of any abnormality may optionally indicate the use of EPO. The expert also concluded that the blood profile was normal and the record contains no indication suggesting that Frank SCHLECK has used a prohibited method such as a transfusion Blood.

74. tely

Similarly, hair analysis performed by Dr. Pascal Kintz of 24 July 2012 have revealed concentrations of DHEA and testosterone comple

is normal and the absence of any trace of anabolic steroid to conclude that Frank SCHLECK not have used such products since mid-January 2012.


Maxime Montfort witness with whom Frank SCHLECK shared almost all of his time during the Tour de France, has also stated that he had never noticed a suspicious item in the behavior of his team-mate

or the use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method that as eg a blood transfusion. It is convinced that Frank SCHLECK would not have cheated and both because of the relaxed atmosphere that prevailed in their room that his teammate was very tired and had realized that he would not do well this year.


Frank SCHLECK Xipamide advance that is not a dopant, is Based on the expert report of Dr. Laurent Rivier to establish that is a diuretic can potentially excrete a quantity important water and electrolytes in a period of a few hours, its use in a race cyclist steps being hazardous to health runner. Indeed, such risks are particularly pronounced in the case a race as demanding as the Tour de France which takes place in full July during which the need for hydration is essential. This substance would be a way to reduce body weight quickly in sports in which the competition is organized by categories weight such as boxing, wrestling, and weightlifting and therefore the

negative the point of view of performance. The Xipamide would not be a substanc e taken voluntarily, cycling is not a sport in which there are weight classes and therefore weighed before which runners would benefit from artificially reduce their weight in order t o obtain a competitive advantage to be admitted in a lower weight class. Frank SCHLECK would also never had a weight problem.

77. rank

In light of these findings, the Xipamide not suitable as substance or doping or masking a deliberate decision is excluded and F SCHLECK concludes that it is therefore shown that the substance can be


his body through unintentional contamination. He would agree to submit to polygraph analysis (lie detector). It

considers that contamination is due to the use of an additional contaminated food.


Frank SCHLECK declare to have during the first 2 weeks of the Tour of France the following supplements:

- SIS Go Gel Isotonic Energy; - SIS Go Gel Plus Nitrates; - SIS Go Gel Plus Caffeine; - AM Sport 2000mg L-Carnitine; - Alpha-Liponsäure; - First Endurance Ultragen RS-Recovery; - AM Sport Aminosaüren Pulver; - First Endurance Optygen; - Deba Pharma Mineral Complex; - Sportpharm Bar.


These supplements have all been chosen and supplied by the Healers respectively RNT team doctor and have been same for all team riders. Suppliers would change every year and would at the same time their sponsors. It would not have

taken other supplements that provided by the team.


It pays to support an expert report of Dr. Pascal Kintz October 10 2012 who took care to make the analysis of 10 additional food mentioned above, the result proved negative, however, for the presence of xipamide. Antonio Rigozzi me, defending the

interests SCHLECK Frank said that samples of supplements provided by the team RNT for analysis by Dr. Pascal Kintz not are certainly more of the same batch as those consumed during the Tour de France due to the fact that they had the idea to make this expertise early September so almost 2 months after the doping control.


Moreover, Dr. Pascal Kintz has analyzed the MEDICAM ent Nexium and EMLA cream, products used by the rider on indication medical team.


This analysis also revealed the negative Xipamide.


The expert Tomas Martin-Jimenez also concluded in its report expertise than the minimal amount of 100 pg / mL measured rather compatible with the theory of the consumption of a contaminated product

ingested the athlete within 96 hours before the doping control with the administration for therapeutic purposes or doping.


Regarding the first condition of Article 295 RAD, consisting establish how the substance entered his body, Frank SCHLECK noted that direct evidence of the origin of the presence of diuretic in his body is physically possible and there have taken into account this situation "Beweisnotstand" (state need for evidence) in which he is currently the contaminated food supplements were consumed. CAS in Even if

part of the sentence would CONTADOR accepted this principle.

Frank SCHLECK is not able to establish any specific complement was contaminated, it argues that the scenario of contaminated supplement ba sed on the "Beweisnotstand" is the most probable.


Alternative ideas advanced by the ALAD namely the food or of contaminated drinking taken out of the race or the race would no

t be more likely that the contaminated supplement. The thesis can set by a teammate, by another rider or a spectator is to be discarded, while Frank does not SCHLECK other than her bottle team and if he grabs a bottle of water tight by a spectator, it that is the sole purpose of being able to spray to avoid wasting contents of his own drum. The thesis of sabotage would be entirely excluded.

86. den RAD NTADOR

He concluded under the provisions of Article 22 relating to the bur the evidence as interpreted by the jurisprudence of the CAS that CO source of contamination is established by a preponderance of probabilities and resulting in the consumption of a food supplement contaminated, the arguments advanced by the ALAD is less likely.


As regards the second condition of Article 295 RAD namely the absence of intent to enhance performance or mask the use a substance to improve the performance, it would establish with a higher degree of proof to know the full satisfaction of the hearing body and result in particular of the ineffectiveness of substance to enhance performance respectively hide a improving product performance given its minimum concentration, the absence of evidence of the presence of an improved performan th

is and the total absence of any evidence to suspect more elaborate doping strategy.

88. rove

Frank SCHLECK estimated in accordance with awards and OLIVEIRA3 KOLOBNEV4 made by the CAS, the appreciation of the intention to imp

performance or mask the use of a substance for improve the performance must be assessed in relation to the substan ce specified prohibited and not in relation to the product containing this substance. unanimous, it is tion increase performance or mask other substances, Frank SCHLECK not knowing that was contaminated supplements. Contrary to the conclusions of the UCI ignoring a substance is contained in a specified dietary supplement would be contaminate d nevertheless sanctioned the voluntary consumption of the same substance, while it is the degree of fault is considered to for assessing the reduction in the duration of the sanction. According to the established jurisprudence and almost

obvious that in this case the Xipamide was not taken with the inten

89. lt is

The conditions of Article 295 RAD is established, the degree of fau

criteria to be taken into account in determining the duration of th e suspension and that in line with the basic principle that applies is the proportionality of sentences. Moreover, in case of contamination

3 CAS 2010/A/2107 4 CAS 2011/A/2645 supplements the fault of the athlete should be considered

as benign and should be based on the precautions taken taking into account all the circumstances of the case to see if the ath lete did not take unnecessary risks.


Frank SCHLECK have the habit of personally verifying labels and package inserts for each product it takes. It would only makes use of dietary supplements provided by the team carefully selected and controlled, which is confirmed by Dr. Gösele-Koppenburg. It would not have taken other measures to me precautionary except to refrain from taking any further food without first personally made to proceed analysis, the CAS would be considered perfectly unreasonable in many decisions. In this case, the fact to analyze supplements before use was irrelevant in view of the contamination Insulated. Does not mention food supplements

consumed on the doping control form would certainly be an negligence, but demonstrate the full confidence of the Frank SCHLECK team physicians regarding the choice of supplements.

91. ke at

Frank would not SCHLECK history, his biological passport analyzed by Dr. Scott would not reveal any abnormality and it would ta seriously all his obligations in the fight against the doping. Application of the principle of proportionality, the sanct

ion rule would be a mere reprimand.

92. g

Frank SCHLECK have already served a voluntary suspension by withdrawin Tour de France and refraining from participating in any Competition and new players If the Disciplinary Board must conclude th

at the sentence suspension, the starting point should run notwithstanding section 319 RAD after its abandonment at the request of the UCI in July 17 2012 and under section 316 RAD, while directly admitted the anti-doping violation. to Pursuant to section 315 RAD while delaying the proceedings would have to ALAD. If the CSD should not apply Articles 315 and 316 RAD the suspension period should run from the later of October 4 2012 when Frank SCHLECK accepted the suspension Isoire to prov meaning of Article 319 RAD. Moreover, it would be necessary


There would be no reason to annul the results and certainly not those of the team, while the team ranking was not based on results of Frank SCHLECK but those three members ers Best Quality team.


With regard to the fine of 1,260,000 euros as claimed by the UCI corresponding to 70% of what the UCI considers gross annual income Frank SCHLECK, the agent asked at the hearing of 19 December 2012 disjunction debate pending a decision on the merits. Alternatively he concludes that the fine requested would be binding

only upon conviction to a suspension of 2 years or more under Article 326 RAD. It also challenges the validity of the fine was of its nature determinable, its validity in principle to the case on a specified substance, and in particular contamination involuntary, its legality in relation to Article 6 of the Conventio n European Court of Human Rights, a fine to meet the strict a criminal fine and finally given its proportionality circumstances and in particular the degree of severity of the behav

ior reprehensible and personal finances Frank SCHLECK.


Finally, Frank SCHLECK in a cooperative, not opposed to request of the UCI about the fees charged.

2) Arguments of the ALAD

96. ng to CMA t

The ALAD concluded that the application of Article 10.4 correspondi Article 58.3 of the Code of ALAD RAD 295 respectively in its conten existing independently of a draft revision of the Code provided for 2015

97. ision

For the presence of Xipamide in samples A and B taken on 14 July 2012, ALAD concludes that the hypothesis of an intentional dec therefore voluntary use this substance should be excluded under the balance of probabilities. The expert report of Dr. Hans GEYER from Cologne November 14, 2012 in fact concludes that under the very low concentration of the substance found in the species 10

0pg/ml, the scenario of a voluntary decision for another product or hide Prohibited Method is less likely that the thesis of contamination a nd in particular because of the absence of any other element of the fo lder.

98. Frank SCHLECK have succeeded in establishing the general route of e ntry into the body of the report, however, prohibited substance without evidence of a fact specific equipment. Concrete evidence of the path would require to

establish the exact product which contained the prohibited substance, as well as circumstances surrounding the entry of that product in the body. U nder TAS5 the jurisprudence of the athlete should prove the circumstance s

factual ingestion alleged a hypothesis or speculation and this is insufficient especially as the reduction of the duratio n of the suspension should be determined by reference to the seriousness of the offense committed the appreciation of which would prove impossible when in fact

5 Penalber 2009/A/1954, Walilko 2010/A/2268 and La Barbera 2010/A/2277 circumstances of ingestion are obscure or speculative.


As for the "Beweisnotstand" if merges with the theory of preponderance of probabilities s routing rather than admit another, it never seems to have been accepted by the CAS to supplement the total absence of facts. Indeed, Article 10.4 does not lead CMA automatically to a reduction of the suspension up to 2 years, since the range runs from a simple reprimand to a suspension of 2 years. The Code is therefore not intended that violations under Articl

e 10.4 CMA, treating specified substances, would ipso facto and whatever circumstances punished less severely.

100 %

The ALAD concludes that the conditions of Article 10.4 CMA is not established and in particular the condition of how the substance specified is found in the body, any reduction in the duration of

suspension may be imposed on the basis of this provision. It would The same Article 10.5.2 CMA which provides for a reduction suspension decision in the absence of fault or negligence significant, but as a first condition that requires the athlete also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his body SCHLECK that Frank has failed to establish precisely.

101. In the alternative, if the CSD should come to the conclusion that Arti cle 10.4 RAD is applicable, proof concrete and precise routing is not required but just general route of entry into the body provided by means of a balance of probabilities ALAD think it necessary, however, to appreciate the reduction in the duration of the suspension decision, identify the spe cific fact constituting the offense as provided in the provision. In this effect should identify whether the presence of the substance specified explained by the regular consumption of a food, a dietary supplement as alleged by Frank SCHLECK or a beverage prepared by team or a container from a teammate or spectator.


Consumption of food contaminated ordinary would be implausible while all teammates ate at the same table and no one else has suffered abnormal control. Ingestion of a dietary supplement

contaminated, a priori quite likely, however, would be its likely due to the fact that supplements consumed by Frank SCHLECK and tested negative, were provided by keepers of the team and consumed by all teammates suffer without another control abnormal. It remains the hypothesis of contamination can be received f rom a rider from another team or a spectator, the hypothesis that ALAD

considered the most likely, although involving misconduct from Frank SCHLECK. implausible. 103. party As for the thesis of contamination by a container provided by a third for the contamination of a supplement or a drink recommended by the team, it should be noted the unwillingness of hide an intentional doping using the detected substance which has no positive effect on performance. The hypothesis of sabotage would be very


About the thesis of contamination by a phony from a third the fault is serious negligence respectively. By cons, in

for the thesis of contamination on food supplements should be noted that the CAS jurisprudence holds that the failure to personal research and rely entirely on the team physician may be a fault on the part of the athlete.


The ALAD concludes that a sanction of suspension for a period of two years is granted. However, as Frank SCHLECK invokes the

principle of proportionality of punishment recognized by the European C ourt of rights may be considered even if the regime penalties set is not disproportionate and implementation of sentences justified by the severe fighting and effective deterrent against dopin g.

106. The fact that the penalty of suspension for a maximum of two years is provided regardless of whether a prohibited substance or specified falls within that specified substances are not necessarily agents of lesser severity. Code appreciation to leave

the hearing panel to the case, as here, where there would be a unintentional ingestion that ALAD admits. Given the fact that is a violation committed involuntarily and that the substance cause is a specified substance, ALAD is not opposed to a reduction suspension of 2 years but without the penalty is limited to a reprimand. The starting point of the suspension should be at

from the date of delivery of the decision due to the fact that Frank SCHLECK has not agreed to sign the declaration of temporary suspension addressed him by the UCI though the CAS has made some decisions in account the voluntary suspension as the runner has emerged.


The ALAD denies that the hearing process has been delayed which would largely result which would justify the application of Article RAD 315. At the hearing on August 29, 2012 she was ready to hear explanations of defense. The hearing on October 8, 2012 would have bee

n called the 15th of the same month at the request of the defense was not able to transmit timely elements of his case. Moreover, the result abnormal control was communicated on 17 July 2012, it would had ample time to prepare his defense, having just ALAD need for 6 weeks to make a cons-expertise Medical and prepare its findings.


The ALAD request for the cancellation of the results obt enus by Frank

SCHLECK during the 2012 Tour de France all the gains he was able to remove. She believes there is no reason for a sanction or pecuniary or condemnation to costs of the proceedings, the Code does AL AD not provide the.

3) Arguments of the UCI

109. K

The UCI supports the conclusions of ALAD in the sense that Frank SCHLEC has not fulfilled its burden of proof regarding the "practical way" of how the Prohibited Substance entered the body, this condition being correlated with the need to assess the degree of then diligence exercised by the rider to prevent said occurrence. Even if th

e Disciplinary Board must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities th at Xipamide presence can be explained by the ingestion of a supplement contaminated food, it remains that Frank does SCHLECK could not benefit from a reduction of the duration of the suspension, n or under Article 295 or Article RAD 297 RAD, while it has not established that taking dietary supplements was not intended to improve sports performance. Indeed supplements mentioned

by Frank SCHLECK as the only ones to have been consumed, have all the virtues to improve p erformance and sports were purposely used between 6 and 14 July 2012. Frank also SCHLECK would not have reported taking these supplements during the doping cont rol.


The fact that Frank is SCHLECK only be relied on recommendations medical team which base their selection on the claims Manufacturers should not be considered for exemption his fault, then he would have consumed food supplements without Other precautions and sometimes without even having knowledge of manufa

cturers certain products.


Due to the fact that he has not personally assured the content of food supplements and therefore should have to give up and consume

it did not establish the exact circumstances surrounding the decision, the fact that SCHLECK could also use other supplements that would personally procured, the suspension would say 2 years application of Article 293 RAD.

112. of

If the suspension should in principle have its starting point the date pronouncement of the decision under section 314 RAD, there urait place reflect the temporary suspension accepted by the rider dated October 4, 2012. The UCI does not preclude the application of Article

306 RAD because of the admission by Frank SCHLECK the violation of the rule doping and the fact that he immediately and voluntarily withdrawn from Tour de France from the notification of the positive result. 113. Under sections 288 to 292 and RAD 313 RAD sports results Frank SCHLECK would cancel.


It would be appropriate to impose a fine of EUR 1.26 million under section 326 RAD as corresponding to 70% of gross annual income from its cycling activity (70% of 1,800,000. - Euro resuming the annual gross salary and image rights).


The UCI also asked the conviction of Frank S CHLECK costs national procedure to be determined by the Disciplinary Board, the 2500 CHF amount equal to the costs of managing for results, (Article 275.2 RAD) in the amount of 290 euros corresponding to the cos

ts analysis of the B sample (article 275.3 RAD) and the amount of 800 euro

s corresponding expense records of analytical samples A and B (Article 275.5 RAD).


116. Section 295 RAD applicable in this case, allows for the case where a su bstance specified is involved, a reduction of the suspension of 2 years if not sentenced to a reprimand for a first violation provided that the athlete establishes that:

- How the Specified Substance entered his body and - The fact that the specified substance was not intended to improve the performance of sports or mask the use of a performance enhancing substance.

117. terion

These conditions once established, the degree of fault shall be the cri for the consideration of any reduction of the period of suspension.

118. ter

This regime of eliminating or reducing the period of Ineligibility grea

favorable for the specified substances called and inspired by the artic le 10.4 CMA be explained by the fact that these substances are likely to be particu larly lead to a violation unintentional anti-doping rule because of their general availability in medicinal products is less lik ely be used successfully abused as doping agents.


Regarding the load and the degree of proof, Article 22, last sentence

FDR provides that:

(...) When the Anti-Doping Rules require the licensee assumed have committed an anti-doping rule violation, to rebut the presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the degr ee of proof shall be by a balance of probability, except in cases provided for in Articles 295 and 305 where the licensee must meet a burden of demonstrate higher. '


Regarding the first condition, an athlete can establish how the substance entered his body through the balance of Probability In other words, the Disciplinary Board should simply estimate the explanation of the sportsman on the presence of the s

ubstance specified qu'improbable6 and more likely that the facts alleged we re

7 smoothly as it claims and not otherwise.

121. The

RAD has been adopted in accordance with the provisions of CMA, it must be interpreted in a manner consistent with this Code. Where appropriate, comments annotating various provisions of the C

MA can assist in the understanding and interpretation of the FDR (Art icle 369 RAD).


Commentary on Article 10.4 of the CMA, which is available

corresponding to Article 295 RAD, provides as follows:

"(...) It is more likely that the presence of substances specified by opposed to other Prohibited Substances, could be explained by a ca use credible, non-doping explanation.

This section applies only in cases where the hearing panel is satisfied, having regard to the objective circumstances of the cas e, the sports, when absorbed or had in his possession a prohibited substa nce was not intended to enhance sport performance. ce Hearing the absence of intent to enhance performance include, for example: the fact that the nature of the Specified Su bstance or the timing of its ingestion would not have been beneficial to the Athlete; usage undisguised declaration or use of the substance as specified by th e sports, and a contemporaneous medical records file substantiating the fact that the substance specified subject to a medical prescription is not related to spor t. Rule Generally, the greater the potential performance improvement, the larger the onus imposed athlete regarding the absence intention of improving sport performance. The type of

objective circumstances which in combination might meet the instan

The absence of intent to enhance sport performance must be established to the satisfaction of the hearing panel, the Athlete may establish how the Specified Substance entered his body through the

6 CAS 2010/A/2229; CAS 2011/A/2615; CAS 2011/A/2618 CAS 2010/A/2230 7, para. 11.7; 2009/A/1926 CAS, CAS 2009/A/1930 by. 3.6.1 and ca ses cited; CAS 2008/A/1515 by.

116 and cases cited, CAS 2011/A/2384 by. 259 and following; CAS 2010/A/2107 by. 9.2 balance of probabilities. '


In the context of the fight against doping, WADA Code returned by the RAD intends to impose the cyclist who wants to get a deletion or a reduction of the sentence, the obligation to demonstrate how the sub

stance Forbidden is found in his body. If interested enough to

plead ignorance on this subject in order to achieve this result, the f ight against scourge of doping in find singularly complicated.


The presence of the substance specified in the body can in principle be explained by different scenarios:

- The athlete voluntarily consumed the substance or a product containi ng the substance;

- The athlete has consumed a product without knowing that this product contained a prohibited substance;

- The athlete has consumed a product that does not in principle prohibited substance, but that has been contaminated.


Section 295 does RAD, about the level of evidence report, no

distinguish between these different scenarios. If the evidence of both the voluntary assumption of a prohibited substance than the consumption of a product without knowing that it contained a prohibited substance is ea sy to report that consumption of a single product unintentionally contaminated is difficult or impossible, the evidence that factually disappeared.


It is true that Article 22 requires the RAD athlete who has to rebut the presumption of liability, to establish the facts or circumstances specific by a simple balance of probabilities.

127. orted by

CAS, however, did not simply mere allegations otherwise speculation made by the athlete, but requires that the evidence be rep factual circumstances and the routing is established by elements Objectives This condition is indeed necessary to allow assessing the degree of fault alone can justify the elimination otherwise reduce the period of suspension to pronounce.


The CAS has decided that:

"Obviously this precondition is significant and Otherwise Necessary ye ar athlete's degree of diligence or lack of fault in relation Would Be Ex amined That to circonstances are speculative and that be made Partly or Entir ely up"


The Disciplinary Board intends to disregard a polygraph analysis, when he is not convinced of the reliability of such a measure inst

ruction. Furthermore, this measure is not very relevant to the evidence rep ort by Frank SCHLECK of the origin of the presence of the substance diu retic in his urine.


Given the difficulty to prove under situations exceptional, such as consumption of a product contaminated, the CAS has accepted a management burden of proof report but lead to a reversal of it. Thus in exceptional cases, a party may have serious difficult to rebut the presumption of liability and it is in the situation "necessity of evidence" "Beweisnotstand" either because the other party has the elements because the evidence is that due to its nature can not be proved means of proof directe.9

131. rty

Thus, when a party must prove a "negative fact" the proof is impossible to bring the principles of good faith imposed on the pa in this case the accusing party, a duty to cooperate with the admi

nistration evidence. Specifically, this part may for example give

detailed reasons why it considers the allegations as unfounded or false.

132. n the f

As part of the assessment of the evidence, the judge will decide o result of the collaboration of the party or draw the consequences o

refusal to cooperate in the administration of evidence.

133. In this case ALAD has cooperated extensively with the administrati on of the proof of path, developing and analyzing various scenarios theoretically possible plausible respectively.


As Frank SCHLECK that ALAD concluded that the theory of a decision volunteer is dismissed as the least likely.


Thus, the expert report prepared by Dr. Laurent Rivier September 10 2012 at the request of the defense, holding that the diuretics are

used in therapeutic purposes in order to increase the elimination of urine and sodium in order to adjust the volume and composition of body fluids. The Xipamide in the form of 20 mg tablets is however

CAS 8 2006/A/1130 v WADA. Stanic and Swiss Olympic Association, 4 January 2007, § 39; CAS 2010/A/2268 I v. Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) 9 CAS 2011/A/2384 v UCI. VELASCO Alberto CONTADOR & RFEC, CAS v 2011/A/2386 WAD A. Alberto CONTADOR VELASCO & RFEC considered to have a diuretic effect less potent than other substances such as furosemide.


Due to side effects and undesirable, it would be more marketed in Europe, except under prescription in Austria,

India, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom. From a therapeutic poi nt of view,

it is still used in the treatment of certain types of edema and hypertension, especially in cases of chronic kidney disease. The oral absorption of a 20 mg tablet results in a diuretic effect aft er one hour to a peak after 3-6 hours. Properties

pharmacokinetics of this substance are that it remains in the body for a long time after its absorption.


If Xipamide is not a substance that can improve the performance, it nonetheless it belongs to the category of diuretics are prohibited in sport while permitting potentially excrete a large amount of water and electrolytes little after their use. Diuretics are used either to

quickly reduce the weight of the athlete in the sport for which the competition is organized by categories of weight (boxing, wrestling, w eightlifting) or to mask a performance-enhancing substance. Given Sensitivity analysis laboratories accredited by WADA, Xipamide would not be a substance to hide effectively presence of other substances. Dr. Laurent Rivier also notes that the amount of 100 pg in urine Frank was a SCHLECK extremely small amount.


In the case of the species, Xipamide could not be used to improve the performance of Frank SCHLECK. Instead, this substance in this case would have a negative impact on performance by running

the rapid removal of water, especially during the Tour de France, whic h takes place in the middle of July, during which adequate hydration of the body is essential. There is no doubt that Frank SCHLECK which knows no overweight and instead had lost weight due 70 days

race before the Tour de France, has not taken this substance order to reduce the weight which is not a selection criterion in the c ontext of cycling.


The Xipamide as a diuretic could be used to hide an substance or a prohibited method such as a blood transfusion. It does Nevertheless it has a diuretic effect and lower according to Dr. Laurent Rivier this substance is too slow in its elimination from the

body and is thus easily detected by laboratories accredited by WADA whose detection techniques and analysis are more efficient. At this Xipamide the title is a bad masking agent.


It should be noted that the doping control SCHLECK Frank did not reveal

presence or steroids or EPO. During a blood test commissioned the aftermath of the positive urine test hematocrit and hemoglobin recorded were low and therefore contrary to rates found on a runner using EPO. The report of Dr. Paul SCOTT paid by October 8, 2012 Defense has been established based on blood data collected through the "biological passport" provided by the rider and concludes the absence of abnormal blood profile, changes in markers being quite normal. The expert concluded that there was at the profile Frank blood SCHLECK no probative evidence which conclude the taking another prohibited substance as EPO or a prohibited method such a blood transfusion.


It also concludes that the analyzed data do not allow to conclude contamination by blood transfusion method considered prohibited.


Hair analysis conducted by Dr. Pascal Kintz on a sample conducted July 24, 2012 excludes the use of steroids in the six months before the Tour de France.


The expert Hans Geyer charged by ALAD submitted his expert report dated 14 November 2012 and also concluded that under the characteristic of the diuretic Xipamide decreasing performance Due to the dehydration of the body, the lack of interest to lose weigh

t during an endurance cyclist and especially given the fact that controls during the Tour de France are numerous and diuretics are easily detectable, the thesis of the voluntary as substance masking is implausible.

144. ss the

Based on these considerations, the Disciplinary Board intends to dismi thesis of the voluntary as one that is less likely.


The thesis advanced by Frank sabotage SCHLECK when checking after doping has been abandoned by the latter. retained in the absence of any factual evidence. It can not be

146. The parties were then developed and analyzed the involuntary taking of a thesis.

The ALAD developed scenarios of accidental ingestion by contamination is:

- Contaminated food, - A contaminated drinking out of the race or race stretched by a

teammate, a runner from another team or a spectator, - Contaminated food supplement.


The thesis of the contaminated food is not likely then that all riders

taken together have the same meal and as the witness Frank SCHLECK Maxime Montfort said that on the eve of the positive control, cook team, as usual, is responsible for purchasing and food preparation common to all team riders.


The Disciplinary Board finds no other cyclist team RNT has tested positive for the Xipamide during the course of the Tour France. This is Yaroslav POPOVYCH runners and Halmar

ZUBELDIA AGIRRE who have been subjected to a urine test on July 15 2012, so one day after Frank SCHLECK positive control, and Maxim MONTFORT which has been submitted to a urine test 13 and 19 July 2012.


The ALAD then advanced the thesis of a drink from contamination by out of the race or during the race, a spectator can set by another teammate or a runner from another team.

150 e

Frank SCHLECK and witness Maxime Montfort filed at During the race each runner takes the bottles which were prepared by th masseur or physiotherapist team. These cans are not labeled individually with the respective name of cyclist but a symbol X is on those that contain sugar. Upon arrival, however, each rider healer receives the energy drink team including specific mineral salts, these cans are labeled with the name of the rider becaus

e of

different tastes and existing pre-selected.


During the race, it is customary to leave a runner named to the fall Refueling car then return 7-8 cans forward to leaders of the race.


It should be noted that no other team rider RNT has tested positive Xipamide or the previous day or the days following July 14, 2012. Cans, however, were prepared together by team trainers and Therefore on the basis of substances taken from the same container.


If it is not excluded that riders of a team spend cans way, Maxime Montfort and Frank SCHLECK say avoid can take a rider from another team and especially cans of spectator could be malicious. However, Frank SCHLECK excludes that during a mountain stage it takes a water bottle closed underpinned by a spectator, but only to sprinkle. He says

However, the 13th stage of the Tour de France in Saint-Paul-Trois-Château x

Cap d'Agde was a flat stage and although relatively long, therefore, he certainly did not have to resort to other beverages than those provided by the team. He does not remember taking one or can or a bottle of water from a spectator or a runner team competitor, the previous days this step.

154. de

Based on these considerations, the Disciplinary Board intends to exclu thesis of contamination by eating a can or bottle of water strained by a teammate, a rider from another team or a spectator,

as unlikely, and in the absence of any factual evidence.


Frank SCHLECK finally put forward the thesis of taking supplements contaminated food which according to him is the most likely theory.

156 L (in

The expert appointed by Hans Geyer ALAD concluded that under the very low concentration of the species in Xipamide 100 pg / mL or 0.1 ng / m below the minimum detection limit set by WADA laboratories to 250 ng / mL), the theory of the voluntary implausible, but that among other arguments, that the contamination was possible, though its knowledge no cases of contamination by food supplements Xipamide it is not known and was not detected by accredited laboratorie

s AMA between 2003 and 2011.


The fact that no cases of contamination to Xipamide has so far been detected, however, is irrelevant.


The expert Prof. Tomas Martin-Jimenez concludes that, given the amount minimum detected, the thesis of contamination by ingestion of dietary supplement is highly probable. It also concludes that

contamination that may have occurred in the 4 days before the examinat ion.


It is a fact that Frank SCHLECK paid to support his claims one expert report of Dr. Pascal Kintz of 10 October 2012 which proceeded analysis of dietary supplements and other products used during cycling. This analysis was made on the basis of products

presented to the expert 18 and September 20, 2012 so more than 2 months after the testing positive for Xipamide, lots of products consumed by 14

July 2012 is not materially longer available. All products analyzed showed no trace of Xipamide.

160. are

Some dietary supplements in this case SIS Go Gel Isotonic Energy SIS Go Gel Plus Nitrates, SIS Go Gel Plus Caffeine Bar and Sportpharm original packaged by the manufacturer in individual portions while Sport on AM 2000 mg L-Carnitine, the "Liponsäure" the First Endurance Recovery Ultragen RS, AM Aminosaüren Pulver Sports, First Endurance Optygen, Deba Pharma Mineral Complex exist in the form of powder or pills sold in larger quantities and therefore not individualized.


SCHLECK Frank said he never took other supplements that those provided by the trainers of the team and he took care to analyze.


As it was noted above, the notion of "balance of

probabilities ", which is the degree of proof required by Article 295 f or RAD to establish the path of travel of the substance in the body of prohibi ted athlete, implies that the latter has the burden of persuading the Counc il discipline against doping that the occurrence of the circumstances invo ked is more likely that another explanation of the positive result of the anal ysis. In any event, the theory of the athlete must be established taking into account other possibilities alleged. In its jurisprudence CAS 2009/A/1930 the CAS explained that when several alternative explanations have been adva nced relation to the ingestion of a prohibited substance, but one of

it seems more likely than others, the athlete has met the standard of p roof required. In this case, it is immaterial whether other possible ingest ion exist, since they are considered less likely. The arbitration will be convinced that through ingestion is determined by if the balance of probabilities, in percentage terms, there is 51% chance that this means has taken place. The athlete must show that ave rage intake is slightly more likely to be the opposite occurred.


Article 22 RAD incorporating the terms of Article 3.1 of the WADA Code, provides that under the presumption of guilt weighing on the athlete the mere presence of the prohibited substance, the overthrow of the evi

dence and especially the presence of the origin of the substance must be specifie d based not by direct and certain evidence, but by a mere preponderance probability which corresponds to a much lower degree of proof. States Parties to the International Convention against Doping in Sport October 19, 2005 therefore wanted the one hand, to effectively combat doping and, secondly, respecting the fundamental principles of Convention of Human Rights and in particular the rights of the defense, allow the athlete to clear himself of the heavy presumption of guilt against him, easing the standard of proof incumbent on the system moral proof applicable in criminal law which dominates the inner convic tion judge can not be applied in an area where the object of the evidence is often physically impossible to establish. This is especially true when the offense is the category of offenses that are involuntary.

164. ces

This implies that the athlete must establish on the basis of circumstan probable evidence including scientific expertise that the presence in the body due to a more probable theory but it is not necessary to establish the ingestion pathway concrete which would resul

t in a so as to require a degree of proof to the evidence that some without any doubt, applicable in the field of criminal law.

165. at

Based on these considerations, the Council intends to retain discipline light of previous developments and established factual circumstances by corroborating scientific experts paid by both the ALAD by Frank SCHLECK and given the fact that no other theory has been invoked, Xipamide presence is explained by the ingestion of supplements contaminated food.

166. pension

In order to obtain an elimination or reduction of the period of sus pursuant to Article 295 RAD, the athlete must also establish a second condition is that, having regard to objective circumstances surrounding the case, the athlete when absorbed or had in his posse

ssion Prohibited Substance did not intend to enhance sport performance or mask the use of a performance enhancing substance. This

condition must be established to the satisfaction of the hearing bo dy and therefore with a degree of higher than shown on the path of the substance.

167. e

If the UCI believes that the criterion for performance must improv

be assessed in accordance with the recent jurisprudence of the CAS 10 Dimitrar

KUTROVSKY October 3, 2012 and therefore with respect to the product containing prohibited substance, and Frank SCHLECK ALAD concluded that the con dition is to be analyzed with respect to the substance in accordance with the specified prohibited majority and constant jurisprudence of the CAS.

st 168. Article 295 paragraph 1 RAD provides the conditions to be determine d by the athlete to to obtain an elimination or reduction of the period of suspension expressly states that these conditions are set in relation "to the specified substance. " it prohibited substance is good in itself and not the product, which c ontained the substance. This provision is sufficiently clear that

169. e to

Paragraph 2 of Article 295 RAD is related to the degree and evidenc

st report in order to establish the conditions set out in paragraph 1. Even if the under this paragraph refer to performance-enhancing substance or masking the use of such a substance without further explanation, re ad this paragraph must be correlated with the preceding paragraph that only complete. Substance referred to in paragraph 2 is therefore the sub stance specified which was expressly referred to in paragraph 1 and the analysis of the condition must

be made in relation to the prohibited substance and not in relation to product which contained the substance. This assessment is also cons istent than the CAS in particular in cases OLIVEIRA and KOLOBNEV11 and

is all the more justified in the context of food supplements contaminated taken voluntarily, but in their ignorance, however, contamination. Indeed, it should be noted that dietary supplements are authorized and especially the widespread use in sport of endurance. They represent a very lucrative enjoyed widely teams Professional cyclists and their federations as national internationally, through sponsorship systematically practiced what explains why no authority to proscribe dream, but is limited at most to discourage consumption.

10 CASE 2012/A/2804 11 CAS and CAS 2010/A/2107 2011 / A / 2645 170. Commentary on Article 10.4 of the WADA Code provides that:

"This section applies only in cases where the hearing panel is satisfied with regard to the objective circumstances of the case, the sports, when absorbed or had in his possession a prohibited substance was not intended to enhance sport performance. The type of

objective circumstances which in combination might meet the instance Hearing the absence of intent to enhance performance include, for example: the fact that the nature of the Specified Substa nce or the timing of its ingestion would not have been beneficial to the athl

ete, the use undisguised declaration or use of the substance specified by the sports ... In general, the greater the potential performance improvement is more great the burden of proof imposed on the athlete regarding the absence of intent to enhance performance is high. '

171. ans

As has been previously noted, the Disciplinary Board admits conclusions of the expert against expert, Dr. Laurent Rivier and Dr. H GEYER who concluded that the Xipamide could not be considered as performance-enhancing substance, but on the contrary would had a negative impact on the latter due to the effect of removing wate

r in part of the endurance test that is the Tour de France in requiring otherwise proper hydration.


The Disciplinary Board also retains the light of the conclusions of Xipamide experts that has not been used to mask another substance method or improving performance due to its characteristic for removal of water slower than other diuretics marketed, low concentration detected in this case 100 pg / mL and the fact that it is easily detectable by accredited laboratories WADA.


The Xipamide was used, according to the findings of Dr. Paul Scott, for hide nor any other substance likely to improve performance, such as EPO or prohibited method, such as a blood, in the absence of anomalies detected in the context of analysis of the blood profile.


In terms of hair analysis performed by Dr. Pascal Kintz, the steroid use in the six months prior to the Tour de France is excluded. It is also noted that no other prohibited substance has was detected in the sample.


The Disciplinary Board finds that the second condition of Article 295 RAD is established, the Xipamide has only been used in this case or as doping substance likely to improve performance or as an agent masking another substance or prohibited method.



Article 295 paragraph 1 states that when RAD application conditions

RAD section 295 are met it is necessary to assess the severity the fault which is the criterion considered in assessing any reduct ion of the suspension period.

177. ossibility of

The Commentary to Articles 10.5.1 and 10.5.2 CMA provides for the p cancellation or reduction of the period of suspension in the event

exceptional circumstances where the Athlete can establish the absen ce of fault or negligence or the absence of fault or negligence on his part in connection with the violation has a penalty can not be canceled entirely due to the absence of fault or negligence in circumstances where an adverse analytical finding occurred because of mislabelling or contamination of food supplements or vitamins (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest

(Section 2.1.1 CMA) and have been warned about the possibility of contamination of supplements). If then we must admit that in the the assessment of fault must be taken account of involuntariness the violation when dietary supplements are contaminated because this element alone should not destroy entirely the responsi bility of the athlete.

178. According to the established jurisprudence of the CAS, the requirem ents regarding the burden of proof based on the athlete to prove that it had committed any fault or requirement are élevées12. Athletes must therefore demonstrate

complied with a high degree of vigilance or extreme caution.


Regarding dietary supplements contaminated CAS accepts difficult to reduce the penalty due to the many warnings related to the use of such produits13. In particular, in

the case

KNAUSS, the arbitration had made the following findings in relationship with the degree of fault of the athlete:

"(...) The Appellant did not know que le Contained the nutritional supplement prohibited substance Until the adverse findings Were Made. ermore, Neither the packet Itself nor the leaflet with the packet STATED qu e le product Contained a prohibited substance. The athlete did not therefore fai l to take the clear and obvious precautions Which Would Any human being take in consuming a food or, in this case a nutritional supplement derived, Furth

namely the reading

12 CAS 2005/A/847; CAS n ° 11.4 2006/A/1025 13 cf. 2003/A/484 CAS, CAS 2005/A/847; CAS 2008/A/1510

labeling of the package or the product description and Accompanyin g instructions for use. His inquiry directly with the distributor of the product falls Within this category of a caution. Had he not taken precautions th esis, his Would conduite indeed constitute "significant fault or negligence (...)". One may not Conclude from the foregoing, however, that 'the Appell ant was Unable, or That Could he not reasonably be expected, to undertake further Top efforts to Avoid the prohibited substance from Entering his body, tissues or fluids. upplements tested for icts happy. ciated with nutritional supplements by simply not taking any. e Panel's opinion, give rise to failures thesis ordinary fault or negligence at most, do order not fit the category of "significant" fault or negligence Pursuant to Article 10.5.2 FIS-Rules (...) ". However, in th He Could Have Avoided aussi the risk asso Of course, the Appellant Could have Had the nutritional s


In general, athletes should be cautious when ingesting food supplements and any drug or same product natural diet.


Indeed, contamination of food supplements by substances

prohibited is common and addressed specifically by the RAD. nt Food must renounce consumption, the risk, if any, duty


runner who was not informed about the exact contents of a compleme

answer for the consequences attached to the violation of this RAD. 14

consideration can not play in this case, the dietary supplement consumed by Frank SCHLECK has been contaminated in isolation, so the consultation of labeling the rider also said to systematically and that is also confirmed by the team physician Dr. Gösele-Koppenburg, would not have changed.

182. According to the established jurisprudence of the CAS, the argumen t that the substance was prohibited in a dietary supplement without the knowledge of an athlete alone can justify the exclusion or reduction of fault or negligence of the athlete. 15


In general, the fault is less serious in the context of an offense involuntary, which explains why the national penal provisions punish this offense a penalty less than scheduled for offenses that are intentional or voluntary.

184. violation of

However, sections 21.1 and 295 RAD provide similar penalties without considering the nature of the intentional or unintentional doping by athletes.

TAS 14 2009/A/1807; TAS 2011/A/2501 15TAS 2008/A/1675; 2006/A/1133 CAS, CAS 2006 / A / 1038: TAS 2003/A/484; 2008/A/ 1489 TAS, TAS

2008/A/1510; 2007/A/1284/1308 CAS, CAS 2011/A/2501


Section 295 RAD is based on article 10.4 of the WADA Code was introduced in 2009 to allow some mitigation of the sanction decide when a substance called into question is specified. However, i

t is interesting to note that in the draft revision of the Code of WADA whose entry into force in 2015, the States Parties expressly provide for the introduction of Article 10.4.2 on "products contaminated, "to introduce in applicable anti-doping code, the notion of involuntary offense may be punished by a penalty reduced and therefore proportionate in cases where "... the Athlete or other Person did not know, Could not Have Known gold, gold Had No reason to suspect Contained a product que le Prohibited Substance .... ".


In this case, it was previously held that Frank did SCHLECK not take other supplements that provided by the trainers respectively sponsors of the team. He trusted the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Dr. Andreas Gösele-Koppenburg, RNT team.


The latter confirmed that he and other doctors on the team are all a series of precautions regarding dietary supplements distributed to runners. Thus, they control components complement each

food to be sure they do not contain any substance prohibited. Given that they are not feasible to analyze supplements themselves provided they choose the products tested and proven original "doping free."


They cater especially to their sponsors, large firms

reputation, ensuring that, having regard to the risk of contamination, these producers make regular quality controls that supplements are produced according to specific procedures necessary to avoid the risk and the selection of raw materials is carried out carefully following a rigorous procedure.


Dr. Gösele Koppenburg-knowing Frank SCHLECK since 2010 certifies that it is extremely cautious about its obligations doping. In this capacity he received, like all cyclists

team physicians insurance team that supplements food provided meet standards of care particularly high. It would also be particularly harsh avoiding drinking

bottles whose provenance is unknown or consume supplements which are extended by third parties.

190. To these considerations must be added that neither the Internet nor th e consultation labeling in particular would have served to prevent the case contamination of the species.


Frank SCHLECK however an experienced cyclist and followed certain number of training courses organized by the anti-doping team doctors


It is assumed that he did not mention food supplements

consumed in the minutes of doping control.

192. thlete s a

It is also true that the constant jurisprudence of the CAS has an a can not hide behind the requirements of a third party, even if it i specialist in sports medicine. It is the responsibility of the ride


ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his organisme.16

193. he only

In this case, the Disciplinary Board against doping believes that t Frank SCHLECK extra precautions could be taken were is simply to refrain from making any further food is to make its preliminary analysis by a laboratory before taken measures deemed unreasonable time and costs by the CAS especially in cases Kolobnev and CIELO.17


RAD Section 295 provides that the period of suspension for a first violation will be at least a reprimand and no period of suspension

and maximum suspension of two years. Having regard to the negligence of Frank SCHLECK and the fact that he has never been convicted and he never tested positive during countless checks he suffered, the Council discipline considers that a suspension for a period of 12 months sh ould be pronounced as being proportional to the intrinsic gravity of the vi olation anti-doping rule.

195. hat:

As the starting point of the suspension, RAD Article 314 provides t

"Except as provided in sections 315 to 319, the suspension period s tarts to run from the date of the hearing decision providing for the susp ension or, if the hearing is waived, on the date on which the suspension is accep ted or imposed in another way. "

196. that:

However, Article 317 provides for a system RAD credit by providing

"If a Provisional Suspension or a provisional measure under Article 235-245 is imposed and respected by the licensee, it will receive a credit for you ladi period of Provisional Suspension or interim measure, attributable to any period of suspension may be imposed last resort. "

197. ntarily to

However, according to Article 318 RAD "If a licensee agrees to volu provisionally suspended by the UCI written then subsequently fails participate in a competition ... the licensee shall receive credit f

or such period of voluntary Provisional Suspension against any period of due suspension may be imposed as a last resort. '

TAS 16 2006/A/1120; CAS 2004/A/613; TAS 2005/A/982; TAS 2005/A/872; TAS 2008/A/1 675 17 CAS and CAS 2011/A/2645 2011/A/2495 v FINA. CIELO Filho & CBDA


In this case Frank SCHLECK accepted dated October 4, 2012 a measure Official provisional suspension by the UCI, under articles RAD 318 and 319.


It considers, however, as provisionally suspended since July 17 2012, while on board his athletic director and UCI's insistence, he competition ceased as soon as the analysis result of sample A was known. He also waived payment of his salary.


The Disciplinary Board considers it unjust not to take into

consideration the period of provisional suspension already imposed by the team and performed by the latter.

201. AD

The UCI has also not objected to the application of section 316 that R provides that if the licensee admits quickly rule violation doping suspension period can begin to run from the date of sample collection, so in this case from 14 July 2012.


Pursuant to these provisions, the Disciplinary Board believes the suspension period of 12 months should start to run July 14, 2012, the date of sample collection.


As for the cancellation of the results, section 288 provides that RAD doping rule violation in connection with an In-Competition automatically cancel the individual result obtained in this Competition and new players


Section 291 provides in particular that FDR "If the event is a stage race, a doping violation committed in connection with any stage will result in disqualification from the event, unless:

i) the anti-doping rule violation involves the presence, use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method

ii) shows that the runner has not committed any fault or negligence an d

iii) results in no further steps were likely to have been influenced by doping violation rider. "

205. t 15

The total absence of fault or negligence has not been used, there Instead of canceling the results obtained by Frank SCHLECK in the firs

st stages of the Tour de France under Article 291 paragraph 1 RAD.


Frank SCHLECK no longer participated in any competition July 17, 2012, section 313 does not find RAD apply.


As for the financial sanction article 326.1.a) FDR provides a fine

mandatory in case of doping violation punishable by a suspension of two years.


Section 326. FDR provides that:

"In addition to the penalties provided in sections 293 to 313, the rul e violation Doping is punishable by a fine in accordance with the following provis ions after.

The penalty is mandatory for licensees who are engaged in professional cycling, and in any case for team members registered with the UCI.

a) Where a period of suspension of two years or more is imposed member of a team registered with the UCI, the amount of the fine

is equal to the net annual income from which the licensee cycling was normally entitled to the whole of the year where the violation of doping was committed. The amount of income will be assessed by UCI provided that the net income will be set at 70% of gross incom e Correspondent It is incumbent upon the licensee concerned to prov ide evidence of in contrary For the purposes of this section, the UCI shall have t he right receive a copy of all contracts terminated by the licensee or any other person or organization with contracts, for example, the auditor appointed by the UCI and national federation. If the financial position of the licensee concerned warrants, the fine im posed under this paragraph may be reduced, but not by more than half. ....

b) In cases other than those referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, the ta x is optional. '

209. the

The UCI has, under section 326 RAD required to impose a sanction financial in this case is to be determined by the annual income which licensee was entitled for the full year 2012. According to the contrac

t of Frank SCHLECK, the rider would have been entitled to an income of 1.8 millio n euros (1.26 million as gross and 540,000 euros annual fee as for image rights), so that, pursuant to section 326 RAD the fine is expected to be 70% of income, so in this case at 1,260,000 . euros to pay the UCI.

210. ne

Frank asked SCHLECK disjunction of debates concerning the component financial penalty. Alternatively, it challenges the validity of the fi because it is indeterminable, its applicability to violations doping in relation to specified substances, compliance with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights the fine not to award compensation for an injury but before have a deterrent effect, its proportionality not only in relation to t


seriousness of the offense but also in light of the financial situatio n of Frank SCHLECK. He argues the causes of reduction used by the CAS

in a case PAULLISSEN.


Under Article 10.12 of the Code WADA Anti-Doping Organizations may, in their own rules, financial sanctions in case of doping rule violation. However, the financial sanction may be

justify a reduction of the period of suspension or any other sanction normally applicable under the Code. The WADA Code thus giving

doping organizations and federations in the choice of imposing addition to a mandatory period of suspension, a monetary penalty. If t he UCI provided in Article 326 RAD the penalty mandatory in case of imposition of a suspension of two years or more, the code is ALAD abstraction of any fine.


The Commentary to Article 10.12 outlines RAD however, that "if a hearing panel should conclude in a case that the cumulative effect of sanction under the Code and a financial penalty provided in rules Doping Organization would have consequences too

heavy financial penalty and no other sanctions (eg, suspension and cancellation of results) would be canceled. "


In fact, Article 23.2.2 of the WADA Code provides that "no provision can be added to the rules of a signatory to modify the effect of items listed above. "It is especially in particular Article 10 the WADA Code on sanctions against individuals, which must be implemented by the signatories to the Code, without being able to be a any change in substance.

214. t

Given the length of suspension imposed 12 months, the Council discipline intends to ignore the imposition of a financial penalty tha is optional and would be appropriate if a disproportionate sanction was added to the period of suspension imposed that alone is already punishment proportionate to the violation of the anti-doping rule.


As to costs, the UCI claims pursuant to Article 275 RAD i) the payment of fees for 2500 CHF results management ii) amount of 290 euros for costs analysis of the B Sample and iii) 800 euros for costs related to the establishment of analytical records

Samples A and B and if appropriate iiii) the costs associated with the procedure of hearing procedure of the Disciplinary Board against doping. SCHLECK not opposed to the request of the UCI. Frank


The Disciplinary Board decides against doping, however, that unless provisions in both statutes of COSL in the Code of ALAD regarding costs and expenses, there is no reason to charge Frank

SCHLECK procedural costs of the hearing panel of the Board of discipline.

For these reasons

The Disciplinary Board against Doping, serving non-public hearing, acting adversarial hearing the parties in their pleadings and explanations

d e clare regular procedure,

gives the UCI to act to intervene,

e clare applicable to the Anti-Doping Rules of the UCI

said there was no need to order a polygraph analysis,

Frank SCHLECK condemns the head of the violation of Article 21.1 RAD retained his office and pronounces against him the penalty of suspension of twel ve (12) months,

said that the period of suspension shall begin on the date of July 14, 2012,

said there is no reason to impose a financial penalty,

di t it is necessary to cancel the individual results of Frank SCHLECK obtained during the 2012 Tour de France;

Frank condemns SCHLECK to pay the UCI: i) the amount of 2,500 CHF management fees results ii) the amount of 290 euros for costs analysis sample B and iii) the amount of 800 euros for costs related to the establishment

of files analytical samples A and B required by the rider.

And fact decided and delivered at the headquarters of Olympic and Sports Comm ittee Luxembourg Strassen, by Martine Soloviev, President referee, Dr. Fernand RIES, referee assessor and Claude FEIEREISEN referee assessor, who signed the this decision with the clerk Franz SCHERER.

Dr. Fernand RIES Claude Martine Solovieff FEIEREISEN referee referee assessor President referee assessor

Franz SCHERER clerk

The parties are advised that, pursuant to Article 71 of the Anti-Doping Code ALAD, this decision is subject to appeal before the Court by a declaration

Characters: 28

The appeal must be filed within 21 days from bear the receipt of the decision.

A copy of this is sent to the Luxembourg Cycling Sports Federation (FSCL).