The case involves an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) Tribunal regarding the sanction imposed on equestrian athlete Ali Nilforushan for a doping violation. Nilforushan tested positive for phentermine, hydrochlorothiazide, and carboxy-THC during an event in March 2012. He admitted the violation, attributing it to a weight-loss program prescribed by his doctor, but claimed he was unaware the medications contained prohibited substances. The FEI Tribunal reduced his standard two-year ineligibility period to one year, citing his lack of intent and reliance on medical advice. WADA appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the sanction was too lenient and should be increased to two years, with all competitive results annulled from the date of the violation.
The CAS panel, composed of three arbitrators, reviewed the case and addressed several key issues. It clarified procedural matters, affirming that international federations like the FEI could participate in appeals without seeking additional relief. The panel also confirmed its authority to review facts and law independently, though it acknowledged the FEI Tribunal’s expertise. The panel emphasized the strict liability principle in anti-doping cases, holding athletes responsible for any prohibited substances in their bodies regardless of intent. It ruled that Nilforushan’s lack of anti-doping education alone did not justify a reduced sanction, as he was an experienced elite athlete who had competed in international events, including the Olympics, and should have been aware of the rules. The panel also dismissed his reliance on a doctor’s advice as a mitigating factor, stating athletes must verify medications and seek Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) if necessary.
Regarding the backdating of the sanction, the panel upheld the FEI Tribunal’s decision to start the ineligibility period from the sample collection date (March 3, 2012), as Nilforushan had promptly admitted the violation. The panel rejected WADA’s argument that his request for documentation or legal defenses negated this admission, noting athletes retain the right to defend themselves while still admitting the violation. However, the panel agreed with WADA that the one-year sanction was insufficient, increasing it to the standard two-year period but maintaining the backdated commencement date. The panel also annulled all competitive results Nilforushan achieved from March 3, 2012, onward.
The case highlights the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations and the importance of athlete responsibility in verifying medications and understanding anti-doping rules. It underscores that while mitigating factors like lack of education or reliance on medical advice may be considered, they are rarely sufficient to reduce sanctions for experienced athletes. The decision reinforces the principle of strict liability and ensures consistency in anti-doping enforcement.