The case involves an appeal by Bayer 04 Leverkusen against a decision by UEFA concerning violations of anti-doping regulations, specifically the Whereabouts Rules, which require timely reporting of player locations for doping control. The dispute arose from events on September 23, 2011, when player M. informed the team doctor, Dr. Dittmar, of his illness and inability to attend training. Dr. Dittmar instructed his assistant, Dr. Hencke, to notify the club’s whereabouts contact person, Mr. Czarniecki, but this was delayed due to the simultaneous arrival of doping control officers from NADA and UEFA. Dr. Hencke informed the UEFA officers of M.’s absence but did not immediately update UEFA’s system, leading to a formal notification being sent at 12:59 p.m., over an hour after the player’s absence was known. UEFA issued a fine of €25,000, citing the club’s failure to report the change "immediately" as required by the Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR). Bayer 04 Leverkusen appealed, arguing the delay was due to exceptional circumstances and that informing the doping officers on-site should suffice. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel, comprising Lars Halgreen, Martin Schimke, and Graeme Mew, rejected this argument, defining "immediately" as requiring prompt action without delay. The panel found the club’s administrative confusion insufficient to excuse the delay, emphasizing the importance of strict compliance with anti-doping protocols. The panel upheld UEFA’s fine, noting the club’s prior violations and the need to maintain the integrity of the anti-doping system. The decision reinforces the obligation of clubs to adhere rigorously to reporting requirements, even under unusual circumstances, and highlights the limited scope for leniency in procedural failures. The ruling underscores the balance between ensuring fairness to athletes and clubs while upholding the effectiveness of anti-doping measures. The appeal was dismissed, and the original decision was affirmed, concluding the legal proceedings.