The case revolves around Nadir Bin Hendi, a champion powerboat racer, who appealed a two-year suspension imposed by the Union Internationale Motonautique (UIM) for a doping violation. The suspension followed an adverse analytical finding (AAF) of Methylhexaneamine (MHA), a banned stimulant, during an in-competition test in October 2011. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reviewed the case de novo, independently assessing the facts and legal arguments. Bin Hendi claimed the MHA entered his system through excessive use of Xyclomod (XC) nasal spray, prescribed for chronic nasal blockages due to a deviated septum. Medical records confirmed his condition and prescription, but the spray’s label did not list MHA as an ingredient. The UIM Tribunal initially rejected this explanation, citing insufficient evidence linking the spray to the AAF, and upheld the suspension. Bin Hendi sought further review, requesting laboratory documentation and additional time for defense, but his provisional suspension remained, barring him from the 2011 World Championships.
Under the UIM Anti-Doping Rules, modeled on the 2009 WADA Code, an athlete facing a first-time violation for a specified substance like MHA could reduce or eliminate the standard two-year suspension by proving three conditions: how the substance entered their body, that it was not taken to enhance performance, and demonstrating their level of fault. Bin Hendi’s case hinged on the first condition, as he failed to conclusively prove the XC spray contained MHA. The CAS panel noted that while the legal burden rested on the athlete, an evidential burden could shift to the governing body in certain circumstances. Despite Bin Hendi’s withdrawal of an earlier CAS appeal focused on the provisional suspension, he reserved the right to challenge the final decision. The UIM Tribunal later reaffirmed his disqualification from the October 2011 event but allowed further submissions. Bin Hendi underwent nasal surgery in December 2011 and submitted additional evidence in January 2012, but the UIM Tribunal upheld the suspension in March 2012, prompting the CAS appeal.
Scientific testing played a crucial role. Initial tests on the XC spray did not detect MHA, but later independent research suggested the spray contained aliphatic amines, structurally similar to MHA. Further testing confirmed the presence of MHA in urine samples after prolonged spray use, supporting Bin Hendi’s claim. However, the CAS panel found the methodology flawed, citing lack of a control group, anonymous volunteers, and insufficient documentation. WADA’s expert disputed the causal link, noting the high MHA concentration in Bin Hendi’s sample was unusual for a metabolite. The panel emphasized that all three conditions under the anti-doping rules had to be satisfied for a reduction or elimination of the suspension. Ultimately, the CAS upheld the UIM’s decision, concluding Bin Hendi did not meet the necessary burden of proof.
The case highlights the challenges of proving the source of a prohibited substance and the importance of thorough scientific analysis in anti-doping disputes. The ruling underscores the strict evidentiary requirements in doping cases and the difficulty of overturning sanctions without conclusive proof. The CAS dismissed the appeal, affirming the UIM’s decision and the imposed sanctions, including disqualification from the event and a two-year ban from powerboat racing starting November 2011. The outcome demonstrates the balance between strict liability in anti-doping regulations and the limited flexibility for athletes to prove unintentional violations.