The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) concerning a doping violation by three Malaysian shooters—Joseline Cheah Lee Yean, Bibiana Ng Pei Chin, and Siti Nur Masitah Binti Mohd Badrin—who tested positive for Propranolol, a banned beta-blocker, during a local competition in March 2007. The National Shooting Association of Malaysia (NSAM) initially suspended the athletes and later reduced their ineligibility period to six months, arguing unintentional ingestion through contaminated chocolates. However, the International Shooting Sport Federation (ISSF) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) contested this decision, asserting it violated the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC).
The CAS panel ruled that jurisdiction could be tacitly established if parties submitted pleadings without objecting to CAS authority. The panel emphasized Propranolol's performance-enhancing effects in shooting sports, placing the burden on the athletes to prove unintentional ingestion. The shooters claimed they consumed unwrapped chocolates from their coach, but the panel found this insufficient to rebut the presumption of intentional doping, citing their failure to exercise "utmost caution." The CAS rejected the NSAM's argument for a reduced sanction, upholding WADA's appeal and imposing a standard two-year ineligibility period. The panel also highlighted the need for stricter sanctions against the coach, reinforcing the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations.
WADA initially criticized NSAM's six-month suspension, later revised to one year, which ISSF deemed acceptable. However, WADA filed appeals with CAS, challenging both suspensions. NSAM, citing financial constraints, did not contest further, and the shooters did not respond to CAS communications. The panel ruled based on written submissions, annulling NSAM's decisions and imposing a two-year suspension with disqualification of results from March 2007. The case underscored tensions between national federations and international anti-doping authorities over sanction enforcement.
The panel concluded that CAS had jurisdiction over NSAM based on implicit consent through correspondence but dismissed the appeal against the shooters due to lack of evidence of their agreement to arbitrate. The applicable law was determined to be the ISSF Rules and WADC, given NSAM's reliance on them. The panel found the athletes failed to prove unintentional ingestion, as they provided no corroborating evidence beyond their claims. The performance-enhancing nature of Propranolol in shooting sports further undermined their defense. The panel ruled the athletes' consumption of unwrapped chocolates constituted significant negligence, warranting the standard two-year suspension.
The final decision upheld WADA's appeals against NSAM but dismissed those concerning the individual shooters. The NSAM's original decisions were set aside, and the athletes were given a two-year suspension starting from their provisional suspension date, with disqualification of results during the violation period. The ruling reinforced the strict liability principle, holding athletes accountable for substances in their bodies regardless of intent or negligence, and emphasized the importance of rigorous enforcement to maintain sports integrity. The case highlighted the challenges of balancing fairness with strict anti-doping regulations and the necessity for clear communication in arbitration processes.