The case involves an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the Egyptian Anti-Doping Organization (NADO) to reduce the period of ineligibility for Egyptian hammer thrower Hasan Mohamed Mahmoud abd El-Gawad from two years to 18 months. The athlete had tested positive for metenolone, a prohibited anabolic steroid, during an out-of-competition test in July 2013. Initially, NADO imposed a two-year ban starting from October 2013 but later reduced it, citing substantial assistance provided by the athlete under their anti-doping rules. WADA challenged this reduction, arguing that NADO failed to comply with procedural requirements, including obtaining approval from WADA and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), and lacked evidence of the athlete's substantial assistance, such as a written statement or full cooperation in investigations.
The case was heard by a sole arbitrator at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), who emphasized that deviations from final doping sanctions are exceptional and must strictly adhere to procedural conditions. The arbitrator found that NADO's decision lacked proper justification and violated its own rules by modifying the sanction without necessary approvals. The CAS ruled in favor of WADA, reinstating the original two-year ban and dismissing the reduction. The athlete argued that he had provided oral assistance due to his limited education and concerns for his family's safety amid political instability in Egypt, while NADO attributed procedural oversights to its inexperience. However, the CAS rejected these arguments, noting the clarity of the rules and the lack of compliance.
The CAS also addressed the athlete's request to backdate the suspension to the sample collection date in July 2013, but this was denied, with credit given only for the time already served. The decision underscores the strict procedural requirements for reducing doping sanctions and reinforces the principle that such modifications must be transparent, justified, and approved by relevant authorities. The ruling highlights the importance of adhering to anti-doping regulations and the consequences of procedural lapses in disciplinary decisions. The athlete was required to serve the full two-year ban as initially imposed, and all other requests for relief were dismissed. The case serves as a reminder of the limited scope for modifying finalized sanctions and the necessity of strict compliance with established rules.