The case of Omran Ahmed Al Owais before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) involved a dispute with the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) over an anti-doping violation. Al Owais, an experienced show jumping rider from the UAE, admitted to administering Rakelin, a medication containing the banned substance reserpine, to his horse before a competition in Abu Dhabi in January 2011. He claimed he had informed event organizers and sought their advice, arguing he acted in good faith to calm the horse during transport. The FEI Tribunal initially imposed a two-year suspension, a fine of CHF 1,000, and legal costs, prompting Al Owais to appeal to CAS.
The CAS panel, comprising Prof. Peter Grilc, Mr. András Gurovits, and Mr. Lars Halgreen, examined whether Al Owais could avoid or reduce the sanction under the FEI Equine Anti-Doping Rules (EADR). The panel emphasized the strict liability principle, meaning athletes are responsible for any banned substances found in their horses, regardless of intent. To eliminate or reduce the sanction, Al Owais needed to prove he had no knowledge or suspicion of the violation despite exercising utmost caution. While he argued he disclosed the medication to officials, the panel found this insufficient to meet the "No Fault or Negligence" standard under Article 10.5.1 EADR. The panel noted his failure to verify Rakelin’s contents, as the product description clearly warned against its use in competitions.
Al Owais also sought a reduced sanction under "No Significant Fault or Negligence" (Article 10.5.2 EADR), citing his reliance on a veterinarian’s advice and his disclosure of the medication. However, the panel ruled his actions did not meet the high threshold for leniency, as his experience in equestrian sports obligated him to know anti-doping rules. The panel rejected claims that cultural or educational factors mitigated his fault, stating these were not exceptional under the rules.
The CAS upheld the FEI Tribunal’s two-year suspension but adjusted the ineligibility period to start from the sample collection date (13 January 2011) rather than the decision date, citing fairness and delays in communication. The panel affirmed the strict liability principle, stressing athletes must ensure compliance with anti-doping regulations, irrespective of intent or external advice. The case underscores the rigorous enforcement of anti-doping rules in equestrian sports and the limited grounds for leniency under FEI regulations. The decision reinforces the importance of due diligence in verifying substances and adhering to protocols, serving as a reminder of the consequences of negligence in anti-doping compliance.