The hearing in the doping case involving HSV professional Mario Vuskovic at the International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne ended after two days. The verdict is not expected for a few weeks. The Vuskovic side spoke in court of a mistake, the WADA of distraction and Vuskovic himself of a nightmare.
Lars Pegelow reports from Lausanne
The question before the International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was discussed for two days: Is HSV professional Mario Vuskovic a doping offender or not? After the hearing, the question of guilt or innocence may not be answered at all. A lot of it boils down to whose credibility the judges in Lausanne value more – that of the anti-doping agencies NADA and WADA, or that of the doubtful scientists that the Vuskovic side used. Around 25 people were represented at the CAS on the days in Lausanne.
Vuskovic’s lawyer Paul Greene argued for an acquittal, the World Anti-Doping Agency WADA for an extension of the ban to four years, and the DFB to two years. The verdict is not expected in writing for a few weeks, but definitely before the start of the new season.
Vuskovic lawyer Greene: “Victim of a laboratory error”
“Mario is innocent. He is telling the truth. He is the victim of a laboratory error and oversight. This was a tragic mistake,” Greene said in his opening statement, referring to the investigation closed by prosecutors. “Because there was nothing there,” Greene concluded. “Otherwise you’ll always find something. Nobody’s that smart.”
“All arguments from the Vuskovic side are distractions”
NADA and WADA opposed this. The anti-doping agency experts have the experience of tens of thousands of doping samples, said NADA lawyer Stefan Netzle. “And experience is the key here. The other side has much more limited experience.” Nicolas Zbinden, who represented WADA before the CAS, resolutely countered: “All the arguments from the Vuskovic side are a distraction. We can basically close this case.”
“It’s an absolute nightmare. I just want to play football. But they took it away from me and I don’t know why. I didn’t do it.”
— Mario Vuskovic
The hearing, officially known as a “hearing,” was similar to the one before the DFB sports court last year. At least in the crucial phases when the experts argued about the interpretation of Vuskovic’s doping sample. Arguments, interpretation, explanations and conclusions took place for hours.
NADA underlines the clarity of the positive Vuskovic sample
As for the NADA, whose laboratory in Kreischa rated Vuskovic’s doping test in A and B samples as positive, the scientists underlined the uniqueness of the sample, which was analyzed using the so-called SAR-Page method. In this process, images are compared at the end and shadows of liquids are interpreted, which ultimately leads to the findings. The method is not without controversy, or as one of the scientists said to the DFB sports court a year ago: “As far as EPO is concerned, it is our least bad method.” Nevertheless, this method has already had many successes when it comes to catching an athlete who has clearly doped. But also failures.
Vuskovic’s side hopes for two precedents
The Vuskovic side cited two precedents. That of the Czech triathlete Wojtek Sommer from 2016, and that of the Australian middle-distance runner Peter Bol from 2023. A samples that were initially considered positive were accepted by the CAS in the trial – the athletes were acquitted. The cases cannot be transferred one-to-one to Vuskovic. For Peter Bol, for example, the B sample already showed an atypical picture, unlike Vuskovic. But the cases at least give the Vuskovic side hope that they can still get an acquittal retroactively.
Protein chemist Chen vs. Epo expert Naud
To support the position, the Canadian protein chemist David Chen was flown in from Canada. Chen spoke about why, in his opinion, Vuskovic’s sample was actually negative. The doping investigators from NADA and WADA, who had an EPO expert on board with Francois Naud – also from Canada – countered accordingly. Chen’s statements are wrong. Point. As I said: It’s about the credibility of the scientists.
Vuskovic: “Would never do what they accuse me of”
Mario Vuskovic sat to the side during all these debates, serious and focused. At the beginning of the hearing he outlined his career. This wasn’t easy for him; the Croatian had to keep trying again because his voice faltered. “It’s an absolute nightmare. I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy. I just want to play football. But they took it away from me and I don’t know why. I don’t know,” said the HSV professional. “I didn’t do it. I would never do what they accused me of.”
Boldt moved and affected
His mission became very clear before the CAS: he is not interested in reducing the sentence, but in proving his innocence and thus getting an acquittal. His mother and HSV sports director Jonas Boldt at his side supported him. Boldt, too, is visibly moved and affected by the injustice he already feels in the current two-year ban.
Lie detector test relevant in Switzerland
On the second day of the hearing, additional witnesses were heard, but essentially they had nothing to do with the scientific analysis of the previous day. For this, the Vuskovic side introduced a lie detector test. Vuskovic had this carried out by a British expert in Split immediately after the doping news in autumn 2022. His verdict: Vuskovic tells the truth. Such tests have no place before the DFB sports court, or in German jurisprudence at all. In Switzerland, however, it does. What significance the judges ultimately attach to the lie detector test remains unclear until the verdict is announced.
Vuskovic faces a four-year ban
For Vuskovic, his career is at stake. If he is found guilty, he faces an extension of his ban until autumn 2026. Until then, what will HSV do with Vuskovic’s contract, which expires in summer 2025? So far, the Croatian defender has continued to be paid because club officials are convinced of his innocence.
CAS verdict in a few weeks
There is also a lot at stake for NADA and WADA. It’s about validating their work and about the entire fight against doping, at least as far as Epo is concerned. The agencies basically cannot afford any areas of attack or doubts about their measurement methods. The two sides are not expecting a settlement or a moderate ban like the one imposed by the DFB sports court before the CAS.
This topic in the program:
Hamburg Journal | May 15, 2024 | 19:30 o’clock
