The case involves Mohammed Shafi Al Rumaithi, a rider from the United Arab Emirates, appealing a decision by the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) Tribunal, which imposed a two-year competition ban and financial penalties after his horse, Royal des Fontaines, tested positive for prohibited substances (propoxyphene and norpropoxyphene) during an event in Ghantoot, UAE, in November 2014. The substances, classified as banned painkillers under FEI’s equine anti-doping (EAD) rules, were found in the horse’s system after it was administered a product named Fustex without Al Rumaithi’s knowledge. While Al Rumaithi admitted the violation, he contested the severity of the sanction, arguing he bore no significant fault or negligence. The FEI Tribunal upheld the violation under Article 2.1 of the EAD Rules, emphasizing the rider’s non-delegable duty to ensure the horse was free of banned substances, regardless of third-party involvement or mislabeling. The Tribunal rejected arguments that the FEI had a duty to inform riders about substance risks, placing full responsibility on the Person Responsible (PR).
Al Rumaithi appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where the sole arbitrator, Michael Beloff QC, upheld the FEI Tribunal’s decision. The arbitrator reinforced that riders cannot delegate their duty of due diligence and must independently ensure compliance with anti-doping rules. The case highlighted the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, holding riders accountable irrespective of intent or knowledge. Al Rumaithi’s arguments—including his prompt admission, reliance on the horse’s owner and a veterinarian who recommended Fustex without disclosing its prohibited contents, and claims of FEI’s delayed communication about Fustex’s risks—were dismissed. The arbitrator found Al Rumaithi failed to demonstrate sufficient care to prevent the violation, noting his lack of proactive measures, such as reviewing the horse’s medical records.
The CAS also addressed procedural aspects, including the potential for backdating sanctions due to delays in the hearing process. However, the arbitrator deemed the FEI Tribunal’s timeline reasonable, given the case’s complexity and Al Rumaithi’s extensive arguments. The original sanctions—a two-year ban from November 1, 2014, and a CHF 1,000 fine—were upheld. The ruling underscored the stringent standards of the EAD Rules, modeled after the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), which do not permit defenses based on third-party actions or mislabeling. The case reaffirmed the PR’s absolute responsibility for the horse’s condition and the limited circumstances under which sanctions may be reduced, such as proving no fault or negligence. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the FEI Tribunal’s decision was confirmed, reinforcing the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations in equestrian sports.