CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2023/A/9681 — Mario Seidl v. Österreichischer Skiverband (ÖSV) & NADA Austria & WADA

"Seidl" · CAS upheld a four-year ban on Austrian Nordic Combined skier Mario Seidl for blood doping established through his Athlete Biological Passport.

What happened in Seidl

Mario Seidl, a 32-year-old Austrian Nordic Combined skier, was charged by NADA Austria with an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.2 of the FIS Anti-Doping Rules (2016 version) based on two abnormal series in his Athlete Biological Passport: the 2016-17 Sample Series (Samples 20-23, collected between 6 October 2016 and 20 January 2017) and the 2019 Sample Series (Samples 35-37, collected between 19 February 2019 and 13 March 2019). A three-member Expert Panel unanimously concluded that the abnormalities — elevated haemoglobin, suppressed reticulocytes, and high OFF-score — were highly likely the result of blood manipulation using erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. The Austrian Anti-Doping Legal Commission (ÖADR) imposed a four-year period of ineligibility commencing 28 November 2019, confirmed on appeal by the Independent Arbitration Commission (USK) on 28 April 2023. Seidl appealed to CAS, arguing that (1) Samples 21 and 22 were invalid due to temperature-monitoring failures, and (2) his hypogammaglobulinemia (HG) disease and resulting infections explained the abnormal values. Sole Arbitrator Annett Rombach dismissed both arguments, finding the athlete failed to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that temperature irregularities caused the adverse findings, and that mild HG-triggered infections could not plausibly explain the specific pattern of ABP abnormalities. The four-year ban and result annulments were confirmed. The case matters because it reinforces the evidentiary sufficiency of the ABP even where chain-of-custody irregularities exist, and clarifies the standard for rebutting ABP findings with medical explanations.

Procedural history of CAS 2023/A/9681

NADA Austria opened disciplinary proceedings before the Austrian Anti-Doping Legal Commission (ÖADR) on 25 March 2021. On 4 July 2022, the ÖADR found Seidl guilty of an ADRV and imposed a four-year period of ineligibility plus disqualification of results from 6 October 2016. Seidl appealed to the Independent Arbitration Commission (USK), which on 28 April 2023 confirmed the four-year ban (commencing 28 November 2019, ending 27 November 2023) but narrowed the result annulment to the periods 6 October 2016 – 18 February 2017 and 19 February 2019 – 1 April 2019. Seidl filed his Statement of Appeal with CAS on 26 May 2023. WADA's intervention request was granted on 29 June 2023. The proceedings were bifurcated; a separate Award on Jurisdiction was rendered on 22 April 2024 confirming CAS jurisdiction. A hearing was held on 21 November 2024 in Lausanne. The merits award was issued on 20 May 2025.

Key holdings in CAS 2023/A/9681

• The ABP is a reliable and accepted means of evidence to assist in establishing an anti-doping rule violation, but is not in itself sufficient to constitute an ADRV under the FIS ADR.
• An athlete challenging the validity of samples due to departures from WADA International Standards must demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that the departure could reasonably have caused the adverse analytical finding; a mere gap in temperature recording does not satisfy this burden where no evidence of extreme temperature exposure exists.
• Where NADA Austria establishes an ADRV to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel through ABP evidence, the burden shifts to the athlete to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the abnormal pattern was caused by factors other than blood manipulation.
• Mild hypogammaglobulinemia and associated minor respiratory infections do not, on the balance of probabilities, explain the specific pattern of elevated haemoglobin, suppressed reticulocytes and high OFF-score observed in the athlete's ABP, particularly where no anaemia of inflammation was evidenced and similar aberrations did not recur despite frequent infections.
• Because blood manipulation can only be committed intentionally and the athlete did not admit wrongdoing, no grounds for reduction of the standard four-year period of ineligibility under Article 10.2.1 of the FIS ADR were established.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied a two-stage burden-of-proof framework under Article 3.1 of the FIS ADR: NADA Austria must prove the ADRV to comfortable satisfaction; if it does, the athlete must rebut on the balance of probabilities. On sample validity, she accepted that missing temperature records for Samples 21 and 22 constituted departures from WADA International Standards, but found the athlete failed to show a reasonable likelihood of extreme temperature exposure. Sample 21 was stored in a cooling box in a Finnish hotel room in November; Sample 22's maximum recorded temperature was only 15.1°C — a level even the athlete's own expert Prof Ruland accepted as harmless. On the ABP merits, the Arbitrator found the three-member Expert Panel's unanimous conclusion of blood manipulation plausible and comfortably satisfying. She then assessed the athlete's HG theory against five factors: (1) the mild nature of his infections was inconsistent with the severe infections needed to alter iron metabolism; (2) if mild infections caused the ABP changes, similar aberrations should have appeared far more frequently across 40+ samples; (3) no anaemia of inflammation — a prerequisite for regenerative erythropoiesis — was ever evidenced; (4) frequent winter-sport respiratory infections are already factored into ABP interpretation, yet the Expert Panel still found the profile highly suspicious; and (5) the Appealed Decision's detailed sample-by-sample analysis was compelling and unchallenged by new expert evidence. The polygraph test was dismissed as having limited evidentiary value under CAS jurisprudence, particularly because respondents could not attend or cross-examine the administrator.

Why Seidl matters in CAS jurisprudence

Seidl consolidates CAS doctrine that ABP evidence suffices to establish blood doping even without a positive analytical finding, and that chain-of-custody temperature gaps do not invalidate samples unless the athlete affirmatively proves a reasonable likelihood of extreme temperature exposure. The award also clarifies that a medically confirmed but mild immunodeficiency (hypogammaglobulinemia) cannot rebut ABP findings absent evidence of severe infections, anaemia of inflammation, or a pattern of recurring ABP aberrations consistent with the proposed mechanism.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2019/A/6226 CAS 2019/A/6254 CAS 2016/O/4682 CAS 2010/A/2174 CAS 2016/O/4469 CAS 2016/O/4463

Frequently asked questions about Seidl

Why was Mario Seidl banned for four years if he never tested positive for a banned substance?

Seidl was found guilty under Article 2.2 of the FIS Anti-Doping Rules (2016 version) based on his Athlete Biological Passport, not a conventional positive test. The Expert Panel unanimously concluded that elevated haemoglobin in Sample 22 (16.8 g/dL, exceeding the upper 99% specificity level) and high reticulocyte percentage in Sample 35 were highly likely the result of blood manipulation using erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. CAS confirmed that the ABP is a reliable and accepted means of establishing an ADRV even without identifying a specific prohibited substance.

Did the temperature problems with Samples 21 and 22 invalidate the blood passport evidence in the Seidl case?

No. The Sole Arbitrator accepted that missing temperature records for Sample 21 (approximately 22 hours unrecorded) and Sample 22 (2 hours unrecorded, plus 7 hours 33 minutes above 12°C with a maximum of 15.1°C) constituted departures from WADA International Standards. However, under Article 3.2.2 of the FIS ADR, the athlete must demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the departure could reasonably have caused the adverse analytical finding. The arbitrator found this burden unmet: Sample 21 was stored in a cooling box in Finland in November, and even the athlete's own expert Prof Ruland agreed that storage at 15°C for 7.5 hours does not compromise sample stability.

Can hypogammaglobulinemia (HG) and frequent infections explain abnormal ABP values in a doping case?

In the Seidl case, CAS held that mild HG and associated minor respiratory infections did not, on the balance of probabilities, explain the specific ABP abnormalities. The Sole Arbitrator identified five reasons: the infections were mild and never required hospitalization or antibiotics; similar ABP aberrations should have appeared far more often across 40+ samples if infections were the cause; no anaemia of inflammation — a prerequisite for the proposed regenerative erythropoiesis mechanism — was ever evidenced; frequent winter-sport infections are already factored into ABP interpretation; and the athlete's own expert Prof Ruland concluded only that a causal link was 'unclear'.

What evidentiary weight did the CAS give to the polygraph test Seidl submitted in the Seidl doping case?

The Sole Arbitrator gave the polygraph test very limited evidentiary weight, consistent with standing CAS jurisprudence cited in the award (including CAS 2021/A/7768, which states polygraph tests 'may have very limited probative value in specific instances, in particular when supported by other strong evidence or filmed'). In Seidl's case, the probative value was further diminished because the respondents could not attend or observe the test and the expert who administered it could not be questioned or cross-examined by the respondents at the hearing.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.