(CAS) Bulletin - Tribunal Arbitral du Sport / TAS

once would cause side effects to most people, but if
the ingestion of 200 micrograms is part of a course of
administration it would have no toxic effect.
Furthermore, it was also clarifi ed and approved by
all experts during the hearing that a person being
subject to a clenbuterol administration course
could reach a ‘steady-state’ within 5 days, i.e. a state
where the level of clenbuterol in this person would
remain stable even if clenbuterol is still ingested in
the context of a clenbuterol administration doping
regime. According to Dr Rabin, following multiple
oral administrations (as per therapeutic regime), a
steady-state concentration of clenbuterol in plasma
is reached after ~4 days, with ~500-600 pg/mL in
plasma corresponding to a 40 ug/12h administration
regimen and 200-300 pg/mL to a 20 ug/12h dosing.
According to Prof. Martín-Jiménez, the scenario of
a 21-day course of clenbuterol administration of 200
ug assumes that the donor was exceptionally reckless
and underwent the treatment without any fear of
detection as such levels of clenbuterol are detectable
during a period of 31 to 36 days.
This last argument was rebutted by WADA by
stating that Mr Contador possibly transfused into his
system the plasma of another person less likely to be
submitted to a doping test.
Based on the evidence of the experts’ opinions, the
Panel notes that a single dose of 200 ug of clenbuterol
is likely to cause toxic effects but that, through a
planned clenbuterol regime a steady-state can be
achieved, meaning that it is possible that a donor,
used as an accomplice for the purpose of blood
manipulations and not risking any doping tests, could
be at the source of the plasma transfusion which the
Appellants are alleging took place.
However, the question arises what motive a person
that is not likely to submit to doping controls might
have to take large amounts of clenbuterol if such
person only has the intention of donating plasma to
an athlete involved in sports at the highest levels and
has no personal ambition to perform in high-level
competitive sports. Inversely, if the person did have
personal ambitions of that type then why would he
be a donor and why would Mr Contador choose this
person to be his plasma donor?
To sum up therefore on this point, the Panel fi nds that
such a clenbuterol regime is theoretically possible,
whether or not it were followed by the Athlete or
by a third party functioning as donor, but that it is,
however, rather unlikely that such a scenario actually
happened.
5.3.3.2 The donation shortly after the last
administration
Dr Martín-Jiménez is of the opinion that WADA’s
blood transfusion scenario can only work if it is
assumed that the donor withdrew his blood within
24 hours after having taken the last in a series of
21 doses of 200 ug of clenbuterol. According to Dr
Martín-Jiménez such a scenario is not consistent. In
essence, WADA is asking the Panel to accept that the
donor is, on the one hand, assumed to be part of a
sophisticated doping scheme yet, on the other, is so
dim-witted that he donated blood just hours after
having taken 200 ug of a drug that is known to have
a notorious slow clearance time.
The Panel fi nds that providing Dr. Martín-Jiménez’s
foregoing opinion is correct it is indeed curious that
Mr. Contador, who is a highly professional athlete,
would, on the one hand, act in a sophisticated
and planned manner (using blood transfusions in
coordination with infusions of plasma and perhaps
the services of a third person over a period of time
as an accomplice for blood manipulations) and, on
the other hand, act in such a negligent manner by
receiving plasma from a donor having very recently
fi nished a clenbuterol regime. Of course mistakes
and miscalculations can occur; however the Panel
fi nds that such a sequence of events is rather unlikely.
5.3.3.3 The Athlete’s urine production
The Athlete contends that WADA, by calculating
his daily urine volume on the basis of the amount
of urine reportedly provided by him during dopingcontrol
tests, vastly underestimated both the daily
urine volume produced by an average male human
and, more importantly, by himself.
In Dr Rabin’s expert report attached to WADA’s
supplementary brief, it is assumed “ that the First
Respondent would have urinated once every three hours between
the transfusion and the relevant test which is an extremely fair
assumption in favour of the athlete”. WADA’s assumption
is based on a mean volume per urination of 140 mL
derived from “data about urine volume delivered by the
athlete for several doping tests conducted by the UCI”.
Prof. Martín-Jiménez also assumed 8 urinations,
i.e. one every 3 hours. However, WADA assumed a
total daily urine volume of 1.12 L compared to Prof.
Martín-Jiménez’s 1.5 L.
The Boehringer Ingelheim study that delivered the
Intravenous data relied upon by Dr Rabin was derived
from six test subjects, one of whom was apparently
of a similar weight to the Athlete. The conclusion of
Jurisprudence majeure / Leading cases
-
135