CAS 2006/A/1190 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) & Shoaib Akhtar & Muhammed Asif
Related case:
PCB 2006 Shoaib Akhtar & Muhammad Asif vs PCB - Appeal
December 5, 2006
- Cricket
- Doping
- CAS lack of jurisdiction
In order for the CAS to have jurisdiction to rule on an appeal, Article R47 of the CAS Code requires that a direct reference to CAS be contained in the statutes or regulations of the body whose decision is being appealed, or that a specific agreement between the parties allow the CAS to rule on the merits of a particular dispute. In the absence of such elements, the CAS does not have jurisdiction.
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).
Consequently 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 of ineligibility on the Athlete Asif.
Both Athlete’s appealed and on 5 december 2006 the PCB Anti-Doping Appeals Committee decided to set aside the decision of 1 November 2006 and to annul the imposed sanction.
In this matter the Appeals Committee deemed 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”. The Athletes had therefore “met the test of ‘exceptional circumstances’ as laid down under clause 4.5 of the PCB Anti Doping Regulations.”
Hereafter in December 2006 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the decision of the PCB Appeals Committee with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The PCB disputed WADA's appeal and argued that CAS had no jurisdiction in this case. WADA contended that the fact that the PCB Regulations provide for an appeal right to an organ of the PCB does not prevent WADA from appealing to CAS. WADA finds that it is entitled to appeal against “final” national level decisions of sports federations.
Following assessment of the case the Panel concludes:
1.) In order for CAS to have jurisdiction to rule on an appeal, Article R47 of the CAS Code requires that a direct reference to CAS be contained in the statutes or regulations of the body whose decision is being appealed.
2.) The PCB Regulations do not provide for a right of appeal to CAS.
3.) The ICC Code does not provide for a right of appeal to CAS of decisions of the PCB Appeals Committee.
4.) The ICC Code contains no provision which obliges the PCB to allow a right of appeal of its decisions to CAS.
5.) If the PCB were subject to such a mandatory provision, no right of appeal to CAS would exist until the PCB amended its statutes or regulations to incorporate such a right of appeal.
6.) There is no specific agreement between the parties to allow CAS to rule on the merits of this particular dispute.
7.) CAS therefore does not have jurisdiction to rule on the appeal filed by WADA in the present arbitral proceedings.
The Panel reaches this conclusion with some considerable regret. The fight against doping will be severely hampered if international federations, such as the ICC, and national governing bodies, such as the PCB, do not ensure that their anti-doping rules are able to avoid unsatisfactory decisions as the majority decision of the PCB Appeals Committee in this case.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 28 June 2007:
1.) The Court of Arbitration for Sport has no jurisdiction to decide the present dispute between the World Anti-Doping Agency and the Pakistan Cricket Board, Mr Soaib Akhtar and Mr Muhammed Asif.
2.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 21 December 2006 is inadmissible.
3.) The arbitration procedure CAS 2006/A/1190 shall be removed from the CAS roll.
