The case involves Khaled Mohammad Sharahili, a professional football player from Saudi Arabia, who appealed against a doping sanction imposed by the Saudi Arabian Football Federation (SAFF). Sharahili tested positive for 11-nor-9-Carboxy-delta-THC, a prohibited cannabinoid, during an in-competition anti-doping test on December 9, 2012. The Swiss Anti-Doping Laboratory confirmed the presence of the substance in his A sample, leading to his provisional suspension on January 13, 2013. Sharahili waived his right to have the B sample analyzed and admitted to unintentionally consuming the substance at a social gathering where he smoked hashish-laced cigarettes under pressure. Despite his explanation and regret, the Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee upheld the standard two-year suspension, citing strict liability under the SAADC Code, which holds athletes responsible for any prohibited substances in their system regardless of intent.
Sharahili appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the SAFF lacked jurisdiction to impose the sanction and had not explicitly agreed to CAS arbitration for doping disputes. The CAS panel examined whether the SAFF’s general reference to anti-doping rules in its statutes constituted an acceptance of CAS jurisdiction. The panel concluded that such a reference only bound players to comply with anti-doping regulations but did not obligate the SAFF to submit to CAS arbitration for disputes in which it was not directly involved. The panel found that the SAFF was not a party to the original disciplinary proceedings and had not issued the challenged decision, meaning there was no valid arbitration clause binding the SAFF in this case.
The case highlights the strict enforcement of anti-doping rules and the principle of athlete responsibility, even in instances where the violation may not have been performance-enhancing. Sharahili’s appeal underscored his remorse and desire to resume his career, but the disciplinary bodies maintained the sanction as a deterrent and in accordance with international anti-doping standards. The proceedings reflect the procedural fairness and thorough review of evidence, including witness statements and laboratory results, before reaching a final decision.
Ultimately, the CAS ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal due to the absence of a valid arbitration agreement between Sharahili and the SAFF. The decision underscores the importance of clear jurisdictional agreements in sports arbitration, particularly in doping-related disputes, and clarifies that general references to anti-doping rules are insufficient to establish CAS jurisdiction over national federations unless they explicitly accept such arbitration. The case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, upholding the original two-year suspension imposed by the Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Appeal Panel.