The case involves Denis Roberts, an Australian wrestler with Attention Deficit Disorder, who was prescribed dexamphetamine, a prohibited substance under anti-doping regulations. Roberts obtained a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) from the Australian Sports Drug Medication Advisory Committee (ASDMAC) for national competitions but was denied a TUE by the Fédération Internationale des Luttes Associés (FILA) for international events. FILA argued that Roberts did not meet the criteria for a TUE, as his health would not be prejudiced without the treatment, the substance could enhance performance, and alternative treatments existed. During a national competition in December 2007, Roberts tested positive for amphetamine but cited his ASDMAC TUE. FILA provisionally suspended Roberts and published the suspension on its website before a formal hearing, which Roberts contested as a breach of anti-doping rules and an illegal publication. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled that for athletes not in FILA's Registered Testing Pool or competing internationally, a TUE granted by a national federation is valid for national events. CAS also affirmed its authority to grant consequential remedies in appeals, including addressing damages from wrongful actions. The panel found FILA's premature publication of Roberts' suspension violated its own rules and Swiss law, which permits apologies for grave personality infringements only under strict conditions. The case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in anti-doping regulations and the jurisdictional limits of international federations over national-level athletes. The CAS decision clarified the validity of national TUEs for domestic competitions and reinforced the need for federations to respect due process before publicizing sanctions. Roberts sought a declaratory judgment, an apology, and legal cost reimbursement. The panel ruled FILA breached its rules by prematurely disclosing the suspension but denied the apology request, finding the infringement insufficiently severe under Swiss law. The case highlights tensions between national and international anti-doping authorities regarding jurisdiction and procedural fairness, ultimately emphasizing the importance of proper adherence to anti-doping protocols and athlete rights.