Like so many studio guests on SRF's Sportpanorama, Mathias Flückiger receives a huge round of applause. The occasion is the definitive acquittal of all doping allegations after the opposing parties did not appeal the verdict.

The first few minutes of the interview are about how "Math" survived the time after the test. But then presenter Pädi Kälin turns the conversation around: After all, he was only acquitted due to procedural errors. "If there hadn't been procedural errors, you'd be hanging!", the journalist pointed out.

Mathias Flückiger was unable to make it clear at that moment that he had not been acquitted by luck, but was unlucky that proceedings had been initiated against him that should not have been initiated at all due to the applicable rules. "So I didn't benefit from procedural errors, but was the victim of several procedural errors," he explained a little later when asked by Ride. And this was also the verdict of the Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Sport: The whole procedure against the athlete was a mistake.

Flückiger was not happy with his appearance on Swiss television. "I have to admit that I didn't manage to explain things clearly at that moment in the live broadcast. The question was also unclear and confusing." Finding the cause and thus proving his innocence was his personal goal. However, he did not have to prove his innocence in the proceedings, as there should not have been any proceedings at all.

Urine sample cannot be used

How did this come about? Flückiger's urine sample, taken at the 2022 Swiss Championships in Leysin, should not have been used. This was primarily, but not only, because it had not been stored correctly after collection - the chief controller had apparently kept it in her private refrigerator for more than 36 hours without documenting this. Where the sample was located between the SM site in Leysin and the laboratory in Lausanne was only explained verbally by the employee in question during the course of the proceedings. It should have been fully documented from the outset when and where the sample was located. The Tages-Anzeiger and the Blick in the 103-page verdict, which is also available to Ride.

In addition, the amount of the anabolic agent zeranol detected was so low (less than 10 per cent of the limit value) that the organization responsible for the doping tests, Swiss Sports Integrity SSI, should have worked through a 10-point plan from the World Anti-Doping Agency WADA. Until then, the sample had only yielded an "atypical result" and not a positive one. Based on the ten points, SSI should have justified why this sample should be considered a positive result after all and why proceedings were the logical consequence.

SSI never provided this justification, which is why Flückiger's sample is definitely only to be considered an atypical and not a positive result according to the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Sport. The fact that SSI nevertheless initiated doping proceedings against him and ultimately informed the public about the supposedly positive sample was the mistake that damaged Flückiger's reputation forever, earned him an unjustified provisional ban and ultimately cost him a lot of money. In addition to lost sponsorship money and potential prize money, it also cost him the costs of his legal and scientific team, which helped him to obtain justice. The latter alone cost him around CHF 150,000, he told Sportpanorama.

Swiss Sports Integrity does not recognize the final verdict

SSI does not recognize the verdict and merely refrains from appealing the decision of the DK before the International Court of Arbitration for Sport on the basis of a "weighing of interests and in view of the fact that the question of the usability of the urine sample is only a limited sub-issue of the entire proceedings".

SSI, which is responsible for doping controls and sample analyses in Switzerland, is convinced that Flückiger's objections to the sample collection procedure and its forwarding to the laboratory in Lausanne did not affect the sample and did not influence the result of the analysis.

Flückiger sharply criticized SSI for this stance: "The fact that SSI disregards clear rules and procedures is unacceptable. For me and all other Swiss athletes, this leads to a great deal of mistrust in the institution that is supposed to stand up for fair sport."

Swiss Cycling sides with the critic

The other organization that has not cut a good figure in the Flückiger case is Swiss Cycling. The Swiss federation made the test result public and issued a provisional ban for which there was no basis. "Swiss Cycling could have stopped SSI's mistakes," Flückiger is convinced. "All they had to do was take a close look at the documents." Instead, Swiss Cycling prejudged him and actively communicated this to the media.

Swiss Cycling obviously does not see itself as part of the problem, but is now backing Flückiger's claim. The procedures must be proportionate and generally designed in such a way that the personal integrity of those affected is guaranteed at all times, writes the Swiss Cycling Federation, stating: "In the case of Mathias Flückiger, this was not the case in our opinion."

For Flückiger, SSI is responsible for the proceedings, which should never have taken place. However, he has not forgotten that Swiss Cycling had also reported that he had tested positive for anabolic steroids. Which is not the case according to the applicable rules. For everyone to note: There is no positive result of a doping sample from Mathias Flückiger.