The case revolves around an appeal by Ismail Mahammed against a decision by the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) concerning a doping violation involving the horse Orkara during an endurance race in Compiègne, France, on August 26, 2005. The horse tested positive for guanabenz and its metabolite hydroxy-guanabenz, substances prohibited by FEI regulations due to their performance-enhancing effects, particularly in endurance racing where heart rate is critical. The FEI's Judicial Committee found Mahammed, as the Person Responsible (PR) for the horse, guilty of a doping offense under strict liability principles, imposing a one-year suspension, disqualification of the horse and rider, forfeiture of prize money, and financial penalties.
Mahammed appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), challenging the decision on several grounds. The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction under FEI statutes and Swiss law, conducting a full review of the case. Key legal issues included the determination of the PR's responsibilities, the presumption of deliberate doping under FEI regulations, and the appropriateness of the sanctions. The FEI's General Regulations designate the PR as legally accountable for the horse, irrespective of their specific role (e.g., trainer, owner, or rider), and impose strict liability for doping violations. Mahammed failed to provide evidence to rebut the presumption of guilt, such as proof of third-party manipulation or an alternative explanation for the substance's presence.
The CAS upheld the FEI's finding of a doping offense but reviewed the sanctions for proportionality. Mahammed argued that his role as a trainer, rather than a rider or owner, should mitigate his responsibility. However, the panel emphasized that FEI regulations do not differentiate levels of responsibility based on the PR's role. The panel also rejected Mahammed's claim of inconsistency with past FEI rulings, noting that prior decisions involving minors or legitimate treatments were not directly comparable. The CAS reduced Mahammed's suspension from one year to eight months, aligning it with precedent cases, and upheld the disqualification and financial penalties. The decision underscored the strict enforcement of anti-doping rules in equestrian sports, reinforcing the PR's accountability and the irrelevance of intent in doping violations.
The case highlights ambiguities in FEI regulations, particularly regarding the nomination of the PR and the timing of such designations, which can hinder the PR's ability to exercise their rights. The panel suggested that the FEI clarify these rules to prevent abuse and ensure fair proceedings. Ultimately, the ruling affirmed the strict liability principle and the FEI's authority to impose sanctions based on objective evidence, while adjusting penalties to reflect established practice. The CAS partially upheld Mahammed's appeal, modifying the suspension but maintaining the core sanctions to preserve the integrity of competitive equestrian sports.