The case revolves around Samir Ibrahim Ali Hassan, a professional football player from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), who appealed a decision by the National Anti-Doping Committee of the UAE (NADO) after testing positive for the prohibited substance 19-Norandrosterone during an in-competition doping test in October 2004. The substance was detected in both his A and B samples, exceeding the permitted threshold, leading to a two-year ban imposed by NADO starting from December 2009. The player appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking annulment of the decision and a stay of execution to continue his employment.
The CAS addressed several legal principles, confirming that a letter from one party could serve as an offer to submit a dispute to CAS arbitration, which the other party could accept by filing an appeal, forming a binding arbitration agreement under Article R47 of the CAS Code. It reiterated that the presence of a prohibited substance in both samples constitutes sufficient proof of an anti-doping violation, with athletes bearing strict liability for substances in their bodies. Athletes cannot avoid liability by claiming contaminated supplements or failing to inform medical professionals about prohibited substances.
However, the CAS emphasized procedural fairness, noting that the player’s fundamental rights were allegedly violated, including the right to be present during the B sample opening, the right to be heard, and the right to timely and fair notification of the doping violation. Procedural irregularities, such as last-minute summonses, lack of proper translation (as the player only understood Arabic), and alleged coercion in signing documents without full comprehension, were raised. The player also contested the independence of the disciplinary committee, citing conflicts of interest involving the chairman of NADO.
The CAS considered the impact of procedural flaws on the validity of the evidence, particularly since the laboratory that initially analyzed the samples later lost its WADA accreditation. A re-analysis by the Cologne laboratory invalidated the original evidence, which became a critical factor in the case. The CAS also rejected the respondent’s late attempt to introduce an expert witness due to non-compliance with procedural rules.
Ultimately, the CAS ruled in favor of the player, upholding the appeal due to the lack of valid evidence from the reanalysis and the procedural violations. The original decision by NADO UAE was set aside, and all other claims were dismissed. The ruling underscored the importance of adhering to due process and athletes' rights in anti-doping proceedings, highlighting the balance between strict liability and the necessity of upholding procedural fairness to ensure a just outcome. The case demonstrates the critical role of procedural integrity in maintaining the credibility of anti-doping measures.