Related case:
CAS 2006/A/1190 WADA vs Pakistan Cricket Board & Shoaib Akhtar & Muhammed Asif
June 28, 2006
In October 2006 the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cricket players Shoaib Akhtar and Muhammed Asif after their samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosteron (Nandrolone).
On 1 November 2006 the PCB Anti-Doping Commission decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Akhtar and a 1 year period on the Athlete Asif.
Hereafter in November 2006 both Athlete’s appealed the PCB decision with the PCB Anti-Doping Appeals Committee.
Akhtar’s arguments in his defence was as follows:
(i) that his high protein intake and rigorous workout schedule over the years had caused endogenous production of 19-Norandrosterone in his system well over the prescribed limit of 2 ng/ml;
(ii) that the nutritional supplements taken by him - including Blaze Xtreme, Nitron 5, Size On, T-Bomb II, Promax 50 and Viper - were not banned items;
(iii) that contamination in the aforesaid supplements taken by him could have been the reason for the elevated level of 19-Norandrosterone; and
(iv) that he was never warned by the PCB about the PCB Regulations.
Asif’s defence to the charge of doping was more circumscribed. He pleaded:
(i) that he had not knowingly taken any medicine or substance which could explain the test result;
(ii) that he had started using supplements, including Promax, when he was in the U.K. three years ago;
(iii) that he honestly did not know the effects of the supplements he was taking; and
(iv) that when recently the team physiotherapist Mr. Darryn Lipson advised him to discontinue the use of supplements, he immediately stopped ingesting them.
The Appeals Committee accepts the Athlete's arguments and rules that the Athletes had “successfully established that they held an honest and reasonable belief that the supplement ingested by them did not contain any prohibited substances”, and the Athletes had therefore “met the test of ‘exceptional circumstances’ as laid down under clause 4.5 of the PCB Anti Doping Regulations.”
Therefore the PCB Anti-Doping Appeals Committee decides on 5 december 2006 to set aside the decision of 1 November 2006 and to annul the imposed sanction.
Hereafter in December 2006 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appeals the decision of the PCB Appeals Committee with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). However the CAS rules on 28 June 2007 that the WADA appeal is inadmissible due to CAS has no jurisdiction to rule under the PCB and ICC Rules.
