(CAS) Bulletin - Tribunal Arbitral du Sport / TAS

specifi c gravity of 1.020. Without this correction,
the concentrations of 5OH-MEHP and of 5OXO-
MEHP were respectively 741.7 ng/mL and 323.3
ng/mL (with the effective specifi c gravity of 1.031
measured in the sample of 20 July 2010). These two
concentrations are extremely high; one of them
being more than twice as high as the maximum
concentration detected by the Barcelona Laboratory
in a study.
The peak of phthalates which appears on 20 July
2010 is consistent with the data obtained after a
blood transfusion.
The Appellants submitted a letter to the Panel from Dr
Hans Geyer, Deputy Head of the Cologne Laboratory.
According thereto, the Cologne Laboratory analysed
in 2010 and 2011 approximately 11,000 doping control
samples. Out of this number, only 5 samples showed
abnormally high concentrations of phthalates from
sports where it is assumed that blood transfusions
have no benefi cial effect.
Furthermore, the Appellants submitted a recent
study by the Barcelona WADA-accredited
Laboratory showing that the average concentration
for 5OH-MEHP is 36.6 ng/mL and the maximum
concentration is 256.5 ng/mL. For 5OXO-MEHP,
the average is 27.9 ng/mL and the maximum is 198.8
ng/mL.
According to WADA, the result obtained from the
Athlete is not conclusive in itself but is an important
indication of the occurrence of a blood transfusion
when seen in the light of the positive test for
clenbuterol in a different sample the next day, at a
moment when the Tour de France was reaching
a climax in diffi culty, the riders were tired and the
lead of Mr. Contador was very tight, i.e. such peak
is much more likely to be the consequence of blood
manipulation than of an extraordinary sequence of
two unrelated atypical and fortuitous events. The
Appellants submit that it is conceivable that plasma,
which could come from a donor, would have been
contaminated with a suffi ciently high quantity of
clenbuterol to trigger the positive test.
The plausibility of this theory has been confi rmed by
Dr Ashenden and Dr Geyer.
According to Dr Ashenden, in order for this theory
to be plausible it is necessary that 1) separate bags of
red blood cells and plasma were used; 2) a pouch of
plasma was contaminated with clenbuterol; and 3) an
ability to boost the reticulocyte percentages during
the event. After having assessed all these elements,
Dr Ashenden came to the conclusion that “Based
on unequivocal evidence that professional cyclists harvest and
store separate bags of red cells and plasma, there is a plausible
scenario whereby the clenbuterol found in the sample collected on
July 21 st 2010 originated from a bag of contaminated plasma”.
According to Dr Geyer, the Athlete’s sample of
20 July 2010 shows much higher concentrations of
DEHP metabolites than all other samples of the
Athlete collected during the Tour de France between
5 and 25 July 2010. Additionally, the concentrations
of DEHP metabolites 50H-MEHP and 5OXO-
MEHP of this sample exceed the upper reference
limits (99.9% confi dence) both of a control group
(n=100) and an athlete group (n=468). Therefore, Dr
Geyer considers that “these data are consistent with data
obtained after blood transfusion”.
Additionally, Dr Geyer mentions that: “According to
our knowledge all actually approved blood bags are fl exible
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products. The most commonly used
plasticiser in fl exible PVC is di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
(DEHP)”.
During the hearing, the UCI added how extremely
rare plasticiser peaks are in doping samples. Such
statement was confi rmed by Dr Ashenden and Mr
Scott at the hearing.
Mr Contador disputes that the adverse analytical
fi nding could have been caused by a blood transfusion,
and invokes contrary evidence basing himself in
particular on the results of a polygraph examination
he underwent, on other scientifi c explanations for
the presence of phthalates and on expert opinions
and scientifi c factors demonstrating that the
blood transfusion theory is pharmacologically and
toxicologically impossible, each of which will now be
examined in turn.
5.3.1 The Polygraph Examination
In order to corroborate his assertion that he did
not undergo a blood transfusion of any kind at the
relevant time, the Athlete voluntarily underwent a
polygraph examination on 3 May 2011. In doing so,
Mr Contador was asked and answered two series of
question as follows:
- “Did you undergo a transfusion on July 20 or July 21,
2010? (No)
- On July 20 or July 21, 2010 did you receive a transfusion?
(No)
- Did you submit to a transfusion on July 20 or July 21,
2010? (No)”
Jurisprudence majeure / Leading cases
-
130