CAS 2010_A_2046 Samir Ibrahim Ali Hassan vs National Anti-Doping Committee of the United Arab Emirates

CAS 2010/A/2046 Samir Ibrahim Ali Hassan v. National Anti-Doping Committee of the United Arab Emirates (UAE)

Football
Doping (19-Norandrosterone)
CAS jurisdiction
Principles applicable to doping
Invalidation of the proof of the violation
Procedural rights violation justifying the invalidation of a positive test

1. A letter from one of the party might amount to an offer to submit a dispute to CAS arbitration which the other party can accept by filing its appeal. The parties can thereby conclude a specific agreement to arbitrate within the meaning of Article R47 of the CAS Code.

2. In principle, the finding of a prohibited substance in sample A which is confirmed in sample B is sufficient proof of an anti-doping offence. The allegations of an athlete (speculation) would not represent sufficient grounds for elimination or reduction of the standard sanction; not only the applicable regulations establish strict liability of the athletes for everything that enters their system, but athletes cannot rely on representations made about the composition of the food supplements by the manufacturers of such products. Moreover an athlete has the duty to inform all physicians treating him/her of the Prohibited List and the athlete commits negligence if s/he does not do so.

3. As far as the proof of the violation of an anti-doping rule and the legal conclusions are concerned, the results of the re-analysis of the player’s sample by an accredited laboratory following the withdrawal of the WADA accreditation to the laboratory in charge of the previous analysis might change the whole situation if the only evidence proving the violation has been invalidated.

4. Besides the right to have the opportunity to be present at the opening of the B sample, the athlete’s right to be heard, to be represented by counsel and to be informed in a fair and timely manner of the asserted Doping Rule violation are fundamental rights. The deprivation of such fundamental rights of the athlete are sufficient to make the whole urine test invalid.


On 3 January 2010 the Disciplinary Committee of the United Arab Emirates National Anti-Doping Committee (UAE-NADO) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the football player Samir Ibrahim Ali Hassan after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-Norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Hereafter in January 2010 the Athlete appealed the UAE-NADO decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and requested the Panel to set aside the decision of 30 January 2010.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the Prohibited Substance and provided several explanations on how the substance had probably entered his system. The Athlete argued that several violations of his rights occurred in the procedure conducted by UAE-NADO.
The UAE-NADO denied the Athlete’s objections and argued that any procedural defects can be corrected by the CAS Panel.

The Panel holds that without evidence the Athlete failed to explain as to how the substance enterend his system. The Panel deems the only evidence proving the violation has been invalidated due to the results of the re-analysis of the Athlete’s sample by the Cologne laboratory (following the withdrawal of the WADA accreditation of the Panang laboratory) have changed the whole situation, both as far as the proof of the violation of an anti-doping rule and the legal conclusions are concerned.

The Panel considers that it has been confirmed by both parties that the Athlete had not been informed about the date of the opening of the B sample and its analysis and therefore has been deprived of his right to be present or to be represented by another person. Also the Panel finds that the members of the UAE-NADO Disciplinary Committee were not independent and impartial. Further the Panel establish that certain other elementary rights of the Athlete were also no respected as well: the right to be heard, the right to be represented by counsel and the right to be informed in a fair and timely manner about the anti-doping violation.

The Panel concludes that for these reasons the Athlete’s appeal shall be upheld considering that on the basis of the results of the new analysis of the Athlete’s sample by the Cologne laboratory, there is no evidence that the Athlete had committed any anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:

1.) The appeal filed by Samir Ibrahim Ali Hassan on 24 January 2010 is upheld.
2.) The decision of the National Anti-Doping Committee of the United Arab Emirates taken on 3 January 2010 is set aside.
(...)
5.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

Original document

Parameters

Legal Source
CAS Appeal Awards
Date
5 October 2010
Arbitrator
Bubnik, Gerhardt
Original Source
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
Country
United Arab Emirates
Language
English
ADRV
Adverse Analytical Finding / presence
Legal Terms
ADRV Notice
Burdens and standards of proof
Competence / Jurisdiction
Fair trial / procedural fairness
Impartiality / independence of the arbitrator
Procedural error
Sole Arbitrator
Sport/IFs
Football (FIFA) - International Football Federation
Other organisations
United Arab Emirates National Anti-Doping Committee (UAE-NADO)
Laboratories
Cologne, Germany: Institute of Biochemistry - German Sport University Cologne
Penang, Malaysia: Doping Control Centre Penang [*]
Analytical aspects
B sample analysis
Testing results set aside
Doping classes
S1. Anabolic Agents
Substances
19-norandrosterone
Nandrolone (19-nortestosterone)
Various
Language
Document type
Pdf file
Date generated
25 October 2018
Date of last modification
15 November 2018
Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin