CAS 2016_A_4596 FIFA vs SAOC & SAADC & Mohammed Mohammed Noor Adam Hawsawi

1 Mar 2017

CAS 2016/A/4596 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Saudi Arabian Olympic Committee (SAOC) & Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC) & Mohammed Mohammed Noor Adam Hawsawi


  • Football
  • Doping (Amfetamine)
  • Admissibility of new arguments presented after the hearing
  • Obligation to report the concentration of a non-threshold substance
  • Differing concentrations of the prohibited substance in the A and B samples
  • Intent
  • Out-of-competition ingestion
  • Context unrelated to sport performance
  • Effect of a partly respected provisional suspension on the period of ineligibility

1. Arguments that were not contained in the answer and do not appear to have been advanced in any of the proceedings before the first instance body but were submitted for the first time after the conclusion of the CAS hearing in a document which the CAS panel in charge directed should be strictly limited to responding to the arguments and expert evidence adduced at that hearing are late and inadmissible.

2. For a non-threshold substance, it is the mere presence of the substance in an athlete’s body rather than the amount or concentration of the substance, that constitutes an anti-doping violation. There is nothing in the WADA International Standard for Laboratories (ISL) or the WADA Code that requires a laboratory to specify the concentration of a non-threshold substance in an A-sample or B-sample as a precondition to recording an adverse analytical finding. Article 6 (2) and (3) of the FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations also makes it clear that, in the case of a non-specified substance such as Amfetamine, it is the mere presence of the substance in a player’s bodily sample that establishes an anti-doping violation.

3. The analysis of a B-sample is intended to confirm the presence of a prohibited substance. However this does not mean that it is either intended or expected to yield identical values as the A-sample. The WADA ISL makes clear that, in the case of a non-threshold substance, the laboratory method for analysing the B-sample is not aimed at having identical results or at gaining information on the background or quantification, but only at confirming the presence of the prohibited substance. In other terms, the ISL only requires the identification in the B-sample of the same prohibited substance that was found in the A-sample, and it does not require the chromatograms or the quantities or the ‘background noises’ to be exactly the same.

4. An athlete who is aware that the substance s/he is consuming has powerful pharmacological properties but takes no steps to verify the origin or content of the substance, purchases it from unknown vendors in unlabelled packages, with no indication of the ingredients or origin must know or have known that there is a significant risk that his/her consumption of the substance involves a significant risk of anti-doping violation.

5. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to infer the date of ingestion from the level of concentration in a sample without also knowing the size of the dose and further information about the individual’s metabolic rate. Therefore, the mere fact that the concentration of a substance in a sample is relatively low does not establish that it was ingested out of competition.

6. The ingestion of a prohibited substance such as Amfetamine with a view to alleviate chronic joint pain is not “unrelated to sport performance”. Professional footballers are regularly required to engage in high impact, high intensity cardiovascular exercise which places considerable physical demands upon the individual’s body and joints. The effect of a chronic joint condition is likely to be at its most acute – and to have the greatest inhibiting impact – during such periods of intense physical activity. Against this backdrop, the deliberate use of a powerful artificial stimulant to reduce or remove chronic joint pain is likely to have a significant and non-incidental effect on sport performance. Accordingly, the consumption of the substance cannot be characterised as being “unrelated to sport performance”.

7. If an athlete only respected some but not all of a provisional suspension, s/he is not entitled to receive credit for any period of the provisional suspension. An athlete’s obligation to respect a provisional suspension in order to receive credit for that period of ineligibility applies to the provisional suspension as a whole and not merely to a portion of it. It is incumbent upon the athlete, as the subject of a provisional suspension, to abide by the terms of the suspension and to exercise due care and responsibility in ascertaining what sporting activities and events fall within its scope.



In November 2015 the Saudi Arabian Anti Doping Committee (SAADC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Mohammed Mohammed Noor Adam Hawsawi after his A and B samples tested posititive for the prohibited substance Amfetamine.

Consequently on 28 February 2016 the SAOC Hearing Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision. Following the Athlete's appeal on 17 April 2016 the SAOC Appeal Panel decided to annul the sanction of 4 years. Instead the Appeal Panel imposed only a period of ineligibility for the time already served by the Athlete until the date of the Appeal Decision.

Hereafter the International Football Federation (FIFA) appealed the SAOC Appeal Panel Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). FIFA requested the Panel to set aside the SAOC Appeal Panel Decision and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The Athlete denied that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation nor that he had acted intentionally. He requested the Panel to impose no period of ineligiblity or alternatively only a reduced sanction with credit for the time already served.

Also the Athlete disputed the validity of the test results and argued that the Lausanne Lab failed to specify the concentration of Amfetamine in his B-sample. He asserted that the Lab misidentified the presence of Amfetamine due to incorrect parameters were used during chemical analysis of a urine sample. Instead the Lab didn't identifiy the presence of the non-prohibited substance β-Methylphenethylamine in his samples.

Following assessment of the evidence the Panel concludes that:

  • the Laboratory carried out the tests of the Athlete’s A-sample and B-sample in accordance with the WADA ISL and did not mistakenly identify a non-prohibited substance as Amfetamine; and
  • the Laboratory was not required to specify the concentration of Amfetamine in the Player’s B-sample, which was irrelevant to the question whether he had committed an anti-doping violation.

In view of the Athlete's conduct the Panel concludes that the Athlete's anti-doping rule violation was intentional whereas there are a number of facts that substantially undermined the credibility of the Athlete's version of events.

The Panel deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the substance was used out-of-competition and in a context unrelated to sport performance. Furthermore the Panel considers that the Athlete had participated in two matches during the period of his provisional suspension.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 March 2017 that:

  1. The appeal filed by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association on 9 May 2016 is upheld.
  2. The decision rendered by the Appeal Panel of the Saudi Arabian Olympic Association dated 17 April 2016 is set aside.
  3. Mohammed Mohammed Noor Adam Hawsawi is suspended for a period of four (4) years as from 15 December 2016, with credit given for any period of suspension already served.
  4. (…).
  5. (…).
  6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2021_ADD_33 IOC vs Chijindu Ujah

18 Feb 2022

CAS 2021/ADD/33 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Chijindu Ujah

Related case:

World Athletics 2021 WA vs Chijindu Ujah
September 29, 2022


  • Athletics (sprint)
  • Doping (ostarine; SARMS S-23)
  • Burden, standard and means of proof
  • Consequences of the disqualification of an athlete’s results on the results of the relay team


1. It is sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) under Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Tokyo Olympics (ADR) inter alia if the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the Athlete’s A Sample is confirmed by the presence in the Athlete’s B Sample of the same Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers. Article 3.1 of the ADR provides that the burden is upon the IOC to establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator that an ADRV has occurred. Facts relating to an ADRV may be established by any reliable means in accordance with Article 3.2 ADR including by admissions.

2. The relay team falls outside of the definition of a “Team Sport” as defined in the ADR. However, where awards are given to teams in a sport which is not a Team Sport, Article 11.3 ADR provides that, in addition to any consequences imposed on the individual athlete(s) found to have committed the ADRV, the rules of the relevant International Federation determine the consequences of such ADRV on the team. According to Article 11.1 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules 2021, the relay team is automatically disqualified from the Tokyo Olympics with all resulting consequences including forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize money.


In August 2021 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the British Athlete Chijindu Ujah after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (Ostarine).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered by the IOC and by the Athletics Integrity Unit. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and the case was settled by Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS ADD) based on the Parties' written submissions.

The IOC contended that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordinghly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Consequently the IOC requested for the disqualification of the Athlete's results and its team members obtained at the 2021 Tokyo Olympic Games.

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. Following investigations he explained that a contaminated supplement was the source of the positive test results. Analysis of this supplement in question in a accredited laboratory revealed the presence of the prohibited substance, whereas it was not listed as ingredient on the product label.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the IOC has demonstrated to her comfortable satisfaction that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. Consequently the Athlete's results and the results of his team mates are automatically disqualified.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 18 February 2022 that:

  1. The request for arbitration filed on 8 September 2021 by the International Olympic Committee is upheld.
  2. Mr Chijindu Ujah is found to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation pursuant to Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXXII Olympiad Tokyo 2020.
  3. Mr Chijindu Ujah is sanctioned with the disqualification of his results in the 4 x 100m sprint relay Final on 6 August 2021, and his results in the 100m sprint – together with the forfeiture of any medals, diplomas, points and prizes in accordance with Article 10.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules for the Tokyo Olympic Games 2020.
  4. The Great Britain men’s sprint relay team results in the 4 x 100m sprint relay Final on 6 August 2021 are disqualified together with the forfeiture of any medals, diplomas, points and prizes in accordance with Article 11.3 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules for the Tokyo Olympic Games 2020.
  5. World Athletics is requested to consider any further action within its own jurisdiction and pursuant to its own Rules including determining any period of ineligibility.
  6. The award is pronounced without costs, except for the ADD Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by the International Olympic Committee, which is retained by the ADD.
  7. (…).
  8. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2021_ADD_21 IWF vs Nijat Rahimov

22 Mar 2022

CAS 2021/ADD/21 International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Nijat Rahimov

  • Weightlifting
  • Doping (urine substitution)
  • Liability of the athletes for the actions of their close entourage
  • Burden of proof and duty to substantiate
  • Assessment of the evidence in case of limitations of such evidence
  • Proof by any reliable means
  • Speculative inferences


1. The World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) and the anti-doping regulations replicating the WADC treat the athletes as being responsible for the actions of their close entourage. The coach of an athlete or the head coach of the national team to which the athlete belongs are not third parties entirely unconnected with the athlete, and in respect of whom the athlete has no knowledge or control; they are part of the close entourage of the athlete.

2. According to the general rules and principles of law, facts pleaded have to be proved by those who plead them, whether it be proof establishing those facts on the one hand, or proof to exclude those facts as being established on the other. In order to fulfil its burden of proof, a party must provide the deciding body with all relevant evidence that it holds, and, with reference thereto, convince the deciding body that the facts it pleads are true, accurate, and produce the consequences which the party alleges. The CAS Code provides for an essentially adversarial system of arbitral justice, rather than an inquisitorial one. Hence, if a party wishes to establish some facts (or alternatively to contradict some facts) and persuade the deciding body, it must actively substantiate its allegations with convincing evidence.

3. A sports body is not a national or international law enforcement agency. Its investigatory powers are substantially more limited than the powers available to such bodies. Since the sports body cannot compel the provision of documents or testimony, it must place greater reliance on the consensual provision of information and evidence, and on evidence that is already in the public domain. The CAS panel’s assessment of the evidence must respect those limitations. In particular, it must not be premised on unrealistic expectations concerning the evidence that the sports body is able to obtain from reluctant or evasive witnesses and other sources. A sports body may properly invite the CAS panel to draw inferences from the established facts that seek to fill in gaps in the direct evidence. The CAS panel may accede to that invitation where it considers that the established facts reasonably support the drawing of the inferences. So long as the CAS panel is comfortably satisfied about the underlying factual basis for an inference that an athlete has committed a particular anti-doping rule violation (ADRV), it may conclude that the sports body has established an ADRV notwithstanding that it is not possible to reach that conclusion by direct evidence alone.

4. Any reliable means includes, but is not limited to witness evidence, documentary evidence, and conclusions drawn from analytical information other than providing the actual presence of a prohibited substance.

5. If not based on direct evidence, inferences used to draw other inferences are speculative and cannot be used to establish an ADRV to the appropriate standard of proof of comfortable satisfaction, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation that is made.



Mr. Nijat Rahimov is a 27-year-old elite weightlifter. He competed for Kazakhstan and previously represented Azerbaijan. In November 2013 the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) sanctioned the Athlete for 2 years after he tested positive for 2 prohibited substances.

In September 2019 WADA instigated an investigation known as “Operation Arrow” into the existence of urine substitution at the time of sample collection in the sport of Weightlifting.
As part of that investigation, negative samples provided by weightlifting athletes since 1 January 2012 were, where available, subjected to DNA testing to discover whether any of the negative samples supposedly provided by a particular athlete were in fact provided by another person, as indicated by differences in the DNA between the various samples attributed to that athlete.

As a result of the WADA investigations the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IWF, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for the use of a prohibited method.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS ADD).

The IWF contended that there was sufficient evidence that the Athlete was involved in the prohibited method of urine substitution. Both the ADRV of use of a prohibited method and that of use of a prohibited substance flow from whether that evidence is substantiated or not.

The Athlete argued that there had been departures from the testing standards on the occasions of the alleged urine substitution. He also asserted that there was lack of knowledge or constructive knowledge of, or involvement in, any substantiated urine substitution.

The Sole Arbitrator addressed in this case the following issues:

  • Urine substitution;
  • The Athlete's implication in urine substitution;
  • The Athlete's knowledge of the urine substitution;
  • The Athlete’s connection with, facilitation of and constructive knowledge of the urine substitution;
  • Departure from the Testing Standards; and
  • Use of prohibited substances.

Following assessment of these issues the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete is responsible for 4 urine substitutions which constitute the ADRVs of Use of a Prohibited Method and to be treated as a single ADRV. Conversely the Sole Arbitrator finds that the assertion of an ADRV of Use of a Prohibited Substance has not been established.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 March 2022 that:

  1. The request for arbitration filed by the International Weightlifting Federation on 29 April 2021 against Mr. Nijat Rahimov is upheld.
  2. Mr Nijat Rahimov is found to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation of Use of a Prohibited Method pursuant to Article 2.2 of the IWF Anti-Doping Rules.
  3. Mr Nijat Rahimov is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of eight (8) years.
  4. The period of ineligibility shall commence from 18 January 2021 which is the date when the provisional suspension imposed on Mr Nijat Rahimov started to run.
  5. All competitive results of Mr Nijat Rahimov from and including 15 March 2016 to and including 18 January 2021 are disqualified with all consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
  6. The award is pronounced without costs, except for the ADD Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by the International Weightlifting Federation, which is retained by the ADD.
  7. (…).
  8. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2022_A_8727 UKAD vs Wayne Boardman

28 Sep 2022

CAS 2022/A/8727 United Kingdom Anti-Doping Limited v. Wayne Boardman


On 26 June 2021, UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) collected an In-Competition urine Sample from Mr Boardman following a Mid-Season International match between England and Wales Wheelchair Rugby League teams. Analysis of Boardman’s urine Sample returned an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) for metabolites of oxandrolone.

Mr Boardman’s case was first heard by the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) and in a decision dated 23 February 2022, the NADP found ADRV charges proved, but ordered that Mr Boardman should not be subject to any period of Ineligibility on the basis he had been able to show he had acted with No Fault or Negligence. 

UKAD sought to appeal the NADP’s decision to impose no period of Ineligibility on Mr Boardman. In light of Mr Boardman’s status as an International Level athlete, The appeal proceedings were heard before the CAS and an oral hearing took place before a Sole Arbitrator on 13 July 2022.



The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 28 September 2022 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 15 March 2022 by United Kingdom Anti-Doping Limited against Wayne Boardman with respect to the decision taken by the National Anti-Doping Panel on 23 February 2022 is partially upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the National Anti-Doping Panel on 23 February 2022 is set aside.

3.) Mr Wayne Boardman is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Articles 2.1 and/or 2.2 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules.

4.) Mr Wayne Boardman is sanctioned with a 13-month period of ineligibility starting from 26 June 2021, with credit for any suspension already served by Mr Wayne Boardman.

5.) All competitive results achieved by Mr Wayne Boardman from 26 June 2021 through to and including 28 September 2021 are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

6.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office in a separate letter, shall be borne equally by the Parties.

7.) Each Party shall bear their own costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.

8.) All other or further prayers for relief are hereby dismissed.

CCES 2022 CCES vs Brendan Hagerman

27 Jun 2022

In August 2022 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the softball player Brendan Hagerman after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Amfetamine and Cocaine.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by CCES. Because the Athlete signed and submitted the Early Admission and Acceptance Form he received a 1 year reduction from CCES.

Therefore CCES decides on 24 October 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 31 August 2022.

World Athletics 2022 WA vs Marius Kipserem

18 Oct 2022

In September 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Marius Kipserem after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of EPO, yet could not explain how the substance had entered his system.

Because the Athlete submitted and confirmed 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 18 October 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 22 September 2022.

UKAD 2022 UKAD vs Ben Harrison

6 Sep 2022

In June 2021 United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the rugby player Ben Harrison after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Drostanolone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and did not attend the hearing of the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He had returned to playing rugby after 10 September 2020 and asserted that the substance was used in the period when he was still retired from sport.

By contrast UKAD contended that the concentration of Drostanolone found in the Athlete's sample was not consistent with his alleged administration of the substance in the period when retired from all forms of rugby.

The Panel considers that the Athlete had admitted the use of the substance and had committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel deems that without any corroborating evidence the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 6 September 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 June 2021.

World Athletics 2022 WA vs Mark Kangogo

12 Oct 2022

In September 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Mark Kangogo after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone) and Triamcinolone acetonide.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The Athlete stated that he had used supplements and medication for the treatment of an ankle injury. Yet, none of them listed the prohibited substances in their ingredients.

Because the Athlete 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 12 October 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 9 September 2022.

World Athletics 2022 WA vs Kamalpreet Kaur

11 Oct 2022

In March 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Indian Athlete Kamalpreet Kaur after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete conducted an investigation into the source of the substance. Analysis of her supplements in a private laboratory in India and in the accredited New Delhi Lab revealed the presence of Stanozolol in a Protein Supplement.

Thereupon the AIU assessed the Athlete's statements regarding the Protein Supplement and finds that the concentration in her sample was not consistent with the use of this supplement as documented and explained by the Athlete. Consequently the AIU deems that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered her system.

Hereafter the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing and accepted the proposed sanction. Because she signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form she received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 11 October 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 29 March 2022.

World Athletics 2021 WA vs Chijindu Ujah

29 Sep 2022

Related case:

CAS 2021_ADD_33 IOC vs Chijindu Ujah
February 18, 2022

In August 2022 during the Tokyo Olympic Games the International Testing Agency (ITA) on behalf of the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the British Athlete Chijindu Ujah after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (Ostarine). After notification both the ITA and the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) ordered a provisional suspension on the Athlete.

Consequently on 18 February 2022 the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS-ADD) decided that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. His results were disqualified including the results of the Great Britain Men's Team.

Hereafter the case was referred to the AIU to determine sanctions based on the Athlete's anti-doping rule violation. Both Parties entered into a Case Resolution Agreement. The Athlete gave a prompt admission and established that the violation was the result of his ingestion of a contaminated supplement.

Therefore the AIU decides on 29 September 2022 to impose a 22 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 6 August 2021.

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