Dhe accused was silent. And kept staring blankly into the middle of nowhere: Mario Vuskovic, 21 years old, defender of the second division club Hamburger SV. Beside him, on his left, sat an interpreter who spent four hours translating what the experts in the room had to say about his case. And that was quite a lot: Fick’s law was discussed, Einstein was to serve as key witness, scientists went into a one-on-one duel. In the end, however, the second day of negotiations in the Vuskovic case on Thursday before the sports court of the German Football Association (DFB) remained without a result. Because there are still too many questions and too few clear answers, an expert in Canada is now being commissioned with an expert opinion. The process will continue on March 10 in Frankfurt.
The Croatian has been provisionally suspended since November 15, 2022 after exogenous erythropoietin (Epo), a blood doping agent, was detected in his urine. The result of the A sample was later confirmed by the B sample. Vuskovic maintains his innocence. He made that clear on the first day of the hearing last Friday. In England he had already subjected himself to a lie detector test. According to scientific assessment, the probability that Vuskovic knowingly doped with Epo is less than one percent. The problem: In Germany, such tests are of little importance in court. In addition, Vuskovic offered a DNA comparison. The sports court has so far rejected this.
“You only see this diffuse area after Epo gift”
Vuskovic’s defense brought four expert opinions – commissioned by HSV and Vuskovic – into the hearing: by a doping analyst from Oslo, a protein chemist from Vancouver, an expert in genetic statistics and biomathematics from Leipzig and an endocrinologist from Dresden. Each of them came to the conclusion that neither Vuskovic’s A nor B sample could have been positive, that it must have been a false positive result. The experts justified this with various weaknesses in the analysis method used by the laboratory. Stephan Oberholz, the chairman of the DFB sports court, refrained from inviting the experts as witnesses.
Instead, he questioned Dr. Sven Voss, head of the Institute for Doping Analysis in Kreischa in Saxony since the beginning of this year. Vuskovic’s urine sample arrived there on September 20, 2022, four days after an inspector had taken it at the HSV training ground. The urine was then stored in the inspector’s refrigerator from Friday afternoon until Monday morning before it was taken to Kreischa by DHL courier. Voss explained how his laboratory picks up the trail of Epo, how it separates exogenous from endogenous erythropoietin and analyzes it using an optical method. The experts speak of a smear, a kind of gray veil that stands out over a dark black bar. The dark: body’s own epo. The bright: non-physical epo. Voss said: “You only see this diffuse area after Epo administration.”
He based his judgment on his experience: he has been dealing with Epo and its detection for 17 years and can therefore distinguish between a positive and a negative sample. And, during his questioning, which lasted around two hours, he left no doubt: Vuskovic’s sample was positive. “100 percent,” said Voss when asked. This is what three people at the institute in Kreischa had judged, and this judgment was then confirmed by another expert.
Disunited scientists
Professor Perikles Simon, head of the sports medicine department at the University of Mainz, acted as a specialist advisor to the defense. What happened at times in the hall was too much even for Chairman Oberholz: a verbal duel between two scientists. Oberholz repeatedly warned Simon that he should keep it short, that he should avoid convoluted sentences and formulate clear questions. Voss kept shaking his head. And so did Simon. Where should this lead?
After more than half an hour of deliberation, Oberholz decided that this day of trial would end without a verdict. How, he asked, should the court decide on this case if the scientific community does not agree? Now the Canadian doping researcher and epo expert Jean-François Naud is to investigate the case and use the remaining amount of urine from Vuskovic’s doping sample, which is stored deep-frozen in Kreischa, to carry out a further analysis for exogenous epo. “There are still unresolved circumstances and questions,” said Oberholz: “We want to clarify the matter carefully and in the usual depth.”
Vuskovic’s defense is considering a motion for bias. Because: Naud is part of an EPO working group and advises the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada). Eight scientists belong to this working group: Another is: Dr. Sven Voss, the head of the institute from Kreischa. Another: Dr. Yvette Dehnes, she prepared the second opinion in the Vuskovic case. So can Naud judge independently? Oberholz, the chairman of the DFB sports court, left no doubt that he firmly believed in it.
The Hamburg public prosecutor’s office is also continuing to investigate Vuskovic for violating the anti-doping law. However, months can pass before a result is reached, a spokeswoman said when asked by the FAZ. For example, the evaluation of a mobile phone from Vuskovic is not yet complete.
