CAS OG 24/03 Mahmoud Al Hamid vs IWF

In January 2024 the Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Saudi Arabian weightlifter after his A sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

Following notification a Provisional Suspension was ordered and the Athlete requested opening of his B sample. However the analysis of the his B sample did not confirm the analysis of the A sample and the Provisional Suspension was lifted in March 2024.

During the Provisional Suspension the Athlete could not participate in two qualifying events, which made it impossible for him to meet the qualification criteria for the Olympic Games 2024 in Paris.

Thereupon in May 2024 the Athlete requested the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) for an Exemption to Compete in the Paris 2024 Olympics. Yet, on 24 May 2024 the IWF decided to dismiss his request and also deemed that his application was filed out of time.

Hereafter on 22 July 2024 the Athlete appealed the IWF Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division. The Athlete requested the Sole Arbitrator to set aside the Appealed Decision and to grant him an exceptional entry into the Paris 2024 Olympic Games Weightlifting competition.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the CAS Ad Hoc Division for the Olympic Games has no jurisdiction in this case as the dispute arose prior to a period of ten days preceding the Opening Ceremony of the Paris Olympic Games.

Furthermore, the Sole Arbitrator determines that the appeal will be in any event inadmissible because the Athlete failed to timely file an appeal in accordance with Article R49 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration.

Finally, the Sole Arbitrator fully recognizes and appreciates the regrettable circumstances that the Athlete faced and the impact on him being deprived of the opportunity to qualify for the Paris Olympic Games. Unfortunately, this does not enable the Sole Arbitrator to assume jurisdiction where it does not exist under the CAS Ad Hoc Rules.

Therefore the CAS AD Hoc Division decides on 27 July 2024 that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the application filed by the Athlete on 22 July 2024.

CAS 2024/A/10291 US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) vs. James ‘Michael’ Brinegar

On 26 December 2023 the New Era Arbitration concluded that the swimmer James Michael Brinegar had not committed an anti-doping rule violation based on the abnormal blood values in his ABP reported by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

Hereafter USADA appealed the New Era Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

In this case, three samples collected from the Athlete between July 20, 2022 and September 27, 2022 showed values consistent with blood doping, specifically the use of ESAs, as confirmed by unanimous expert evaluation of the Athlete's blood profile in early 2023.

The Athlete's case was heard to ensure resolution in advance of team selection decisions related to the upcoming Paris Olympic Games. Because a decision was needed before team selection decisions were made, the CAS panel issued an operative award, which is an abbreviated document that only conveys the panel’s ruling.

The reasoned decision will be made publicly available once it is rendered. The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 June 2024 that:

1.) The appeal filed by US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) on 9 January 2024 against the decision issued on 26 December 2023 by New Era Arbitration (Case No 2023082801) is partially upheld, as set out in paragraphs (3)-(6) below.

2.) The said decision issued on 26 December 2023 is set aside.

3. James ‘Michael’ Brinegar is found to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.2. of the World Anti-Doping Code.

4.) James ‘Michael’ Brinegar is sanctioned with a period of Ineligibility (within the meaning of the World Anti-Doping Code) of four (4) years, commencing on the date of this decision.

5.) Credit is to be given for the period during which James ‘Michael’ Brinegar has already been provisionally suspended, from 18 August 2023 until 27 November 2023.

6.) James ‘Michael’ Brinegar’s competition results in the period from 20 July 2022 to 31 December 2022 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, ranking points and prizes (all within the meaning of the World Anti-Doping Code).

7.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by James ‘Michael’ Brinegar.

8.) Each party shall bear its own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.

9.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2022/A/9341 Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Abdullah Alrouwely & Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC)

In June 2022, the Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC) reported an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) against the football player Abdullah Alrouwely after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Amfetamine.

Consequently the SAADC decided on 14 December 2022 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Panel deemed that the substance was used recreationally, out-of-competition and unrelated to sport performance.

Hereafter the International Football Federation (FIFA) appealed the SAADC Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). FIFA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 4 years on the Athlete.

The Athlete in his defence asserted that:

• The violation was not intentional.
• the concentration in his sample was very low.
• He was unaware of contamination of the tea he was drinking at a wedding.
• Adding stimulants to beverages at wedding parties is a tradition in his region, in order to help people dance.

The SAADC acknowledged that in first instance the Panel made a mistake and by misunderstanding had considered the prohibited substance a "Substance of Abuse".

FIFA disputed the conclusion that the anti-doping rule violation was the result of out-of-competition recreational use of a Substance of Abuse. Moreover the Athlete failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system, nor grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence and arguments presented by the Parties and determines that:

• The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample.
• He committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• Amfetamine is not a "Substance of Abuse", nor prohibited out-of-competition.
• The substance was detected in-competition, despite it may have been ingested out-of-competition.
• The Athlete failed to demonstrate with evidence that the ingestion occurred out-of-competition in a context unrelated to sport performance.
• He failed to establish that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 April 2024 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) on 14 December 2022 against the decision rendered on 28 July 2022 by the Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC) is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered on 28 July 2022 by the Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC) is set aside.

3.) Mr Abdullah Alrouwely is declared ineligible for a period of four years from the date of the present Award. Credit is given for the period of suspension served by Mr Abdullah Alrouwely from 21 June 2022 to 20 September 2022.

4.) The costs of this arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Comi Office, shall be borne by the Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC) and by Mr Abdullah Alrouwely as to 50% each. The Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC) shall be jointly liable for the payment of the Mr Abdullah Alrouwely's share.

5.) Each Party shall bear the expenses it has incurred in connection with this arbitration.

6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

In August 2023 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) reported an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) against the rugby player Bevan Jay after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (Ostarine).

Following notification, a provisional suspension was imposed. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied that the violation was intentional. He could not explain how the substance had entered his system and believed that a fat burner product he has used was likely the source of the substance.

UKAD contended that he Athlete failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that the violation was not intentional. UKAD ruled out contamination because of the high concentration established in his sample while the relevant supplements were also not mentioned on the Doping Control Form.

The Panel agrees that the Athlete failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system. The Panel deems that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Panel decides on 18 July 2024 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 15 August 2023.

In October 2023 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) reported an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) against the rugby player David Foggin-Johnston after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

Following notification, a provisional suspension was imposed. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and asserted that the Cocaine was used only recreational, out-of-competition and unrelated to sport performance. He acknowledged that he suffered from a cocaine habit and abuse of alcohol.

With friends he had consumed large amounts of alcohol and had used cocaine from the Thursday evening until the Friday evening. Although he admitted later that he continued drinking hereafter and had used more grams of cocaine then stated, he denied he had used cocaine on Saturday or on Sunday.

He stated that originally he was not scheduled to play on Sunday. Yet, when he was recovering in bed at home on Saturday he was called unexpectedly to play on Sunday where he was tested.

UKAD and its anti-doping expert deemed that the Athlete's use occurred in-competition because he also must have used cocaine on the Saturday. When he was tested the concentration found in his sample was 140 times above the threshold whereas the concentration of Benzoylecgonine in his sample was 79 time greater.

In view of the evidence the Panel concludes that the Athlete's use of cocaine was recreational and ultimately occurred in-competition when he started his binge session on the Thursday. The Panel does not accept that his first explanation of his consumption of cocaine and alcohol was inaccurate, neither that he failed to produce corroborating evidence in his defence.

Therefore the Panel decides on 1 August 2024 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 October 2023.

In June 2023 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) reported an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) against the judoka Munkhjin Batdorj after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Trenbolone.

Following Notification, the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, signed an Agreement on Consequences, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the Centre. In this case the CCES accepted that the Athlete's violation was not intentional.

Therefore the CCES decides on 8 August 2024 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date the Athlete accepted the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 June 2023.

In June 2024, the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA), on behalf of the International Tennis Federation (ITF), reported an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) against the tennis player Jannik Sinner after two of his samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Clostebol.

Following notification of both positive tests, twice a provisional suspension was imposed and later lifted on each occasion. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the ITF Independent Tribunal.

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied that the violation was intentional. He argued that he acted with No Fault or Negligence and requested that no period of ineligibility shall be imposed.

The Athlete demonstrated that the substance entered his body inadvertently and unaware to him and his physiotherapist. At the material time his physiotherapist had used a Trofodermin spray, containing Clostebol, to treat a cut on his own finger. Thereupon the physiotherapist gave daily full-body massages to the Athlete without using gloves and via skin-to-skin contact he exposed him to contamination. The medical spray was purchased by the Athlete's fitness coach and provided to the physiotherapist to treat his injury.

The ITIA accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete demonstrated how the substance had entered his body. Moreover, anti-doping experts considered it plausible that the Athlete's positive tests had been caused by inadvertent contamination.

The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence and the issues raised by the Parties and determines that: 

• The Athlete had a high level of awareness about anti-doping matters.
• The Athlete was right to assume that his team was aware of the anti-doping matters.
• He had no reason to suspect the physiotherapist was in possession of the Trofodermin spray, nor that he was using the spray, nor there was any doping risk when he received treatment.
• Independent experts confirmed the plausibility of the Athlete's explanation.
• The Athlete has exercised utmost caution and has done all that is possible to avoid a positive test result.

Therefore the Panel decides on 19 August 2024 that the Athlete has established No Fault or Negligence and that no period of ineligibility was imposed.

In June 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) against the French Athlete Mehdi Frère. Both the AIU and the AFLD deemed that the Athlete had 3 Whereabouts Failures recorded within a 12 month period:

• a Filing Failure on 23 February 2023;
• a Filing Failure on 18 September 2023;
• a Filing Failure on 22 February 2024.

Regarding 2 Whereabouts Failure the Athlete had submitted his explanations, whereas he requested an administrative review only for his last failure. Nevertheless his objection were rejected and the 3 Whereabouts Failures were recorded.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal.

World Athletics contended that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation due to the 3 Whereabouts Failures. As a result it requested the Panel to impose a sanction of 2 years on the Athlete.

The Athlete admitted his 2nd Whereabouts Failure and denied he acted intentionally. Further he asserted that in this case there had been several procedural failures and breaches made by the AFLD and AIU.

He demonstrated with evidence that the local circumstances and last minute changes made it difficult for him to timely update his Whereabouts in ADAMS. Moreover as a gendarme since 2018 and member of the French Republican Guard he explained that his status as an athlete is subordinate to his professional obligations. 

The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence and arguments presented by the Parties and determines that:

• Any procedural failure that prior occurred must be considered cured and thus are insignificant for this arbitration procedure.
• There were 3 Whereabouts Failures recorded within a 12 month period.
• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• His Whereabouts in ADAMS were inaccurate because he failed to timely update his information.
• He acted negligently and his explanations are not credible.
• He failed to attend any of the 20 education sessions organized by the AFLD in 2022 and 2023.
• The Athlete's degree of fault is very high and there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Panel decides on 15 July 2024 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 June 2024.

In August 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported and anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Salina Jebet after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). 

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete responded and filed a statement in her defence.

The Athlete explained that she underwent medical treatment for her diagnosed condition. In support she submitted medical information and a prescription issued by the Kapsabet County Referral Hospital.

Hereafter the AIU requested assistance from the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) with an investigation into the Athlete's explanations and supporting medical documents. In October 2023 ADAK's investigation revealed that the filed medical documents from the clinic were falsifications. 

The Hospital confirmed that the Athlete had only visited the hospital in August 2023. Yet, no prescription had ever been issued, nor was an injection administered, nor was the medication Nandrolone in stock in the hospital.

Consequently in May 2024 the AIU reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for:

• presence of a prohibited substance; and
• tampering with any part of the doping control.

After notification of these charges the Athlete gave a timely admission and she accepted the sanction proposed by the AIU. The AIU considers that the Athlete has failed to demonstrate that these two violations were not intentional, nor any exceptional circumstances for a reduced sanction.

Because the Athlete had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violation and Acceptance of Consequences Form in July 2024 she received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 2 July 2024 to impose a 7 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 17 August 2023.

In May 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Spanish Athlete Abderrahim Ougra for evading sample collection on 21 January 2024.

The Doping Control Officer (DCO) reported that following notification the Athlete had signed the Doping Control Form for confirmation. Escorted by a chaperone the Athlete first returned to his belongings and then took the liberty to do some cooling down activities on the track, despite the chaperone's instructions to report to the DCO immediately.

Thereupon the Athlete disappeared through an exit from the track and left the facility completely. The chaperone was unable to locate the Athlete and neither did the Athlete respond when contacted by phone and WhatsApp.

Hereafter in February 2024 the Athlete explained that he had never received anti-doping education, nor had he been tested before. The Doping Control made him feel very anxious and this anxiety had caused him to run away.

Ultimately in June 2024 the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The AIU considers that there are no exceptional circumstances in this case. Because the Athlete had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form he received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 2 August 2024 to impose a 3 year and 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 May 2024.