The case involves a dispute between the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the Turkish Football Federation (TFF) along with professional footballer Ahmet Kuru, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The controversy arose from Kuru's positive doping test for clomiphene, a prohibited substance under the WADA Prohibited List. Kuru had previously applied for a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) in 2014 to treat infertility, but his request was denied by the TFF Anti-Doping Committee, which warned him about the risks of continuing the medication. Despite this, Kuru tested positive for clomiphene in November 2015 during an in-competition doping control. The TFF initially imposed a six-month suspension, which was upheld on appeal. WADA challenged this decision, arguing that the sanction was insufficient under FIFA's Anti-Doping Regulations (FIFA ADR), which require proof of intent to violate anti-doping rules for a stricter penalty.
The jurisdictional basis for the appeal was established under Article R47 of the CAS Code, which allows appeals when the statutes of the relevant sports body permit or when parties agree to arbitration. The parties agreed that the FIFA ADR, updated in 2015, were applicable, as TFF had not updated its own regulations to reflect the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code (WADC). A provisional article in TFF's regulations ensured that FIFA ADR would prevail in case of discrepancies. WADA argued that the TFF Appeal Committee's decision qualified as a national-level appeal body under FIFA ADR Article 75, or alternatively, that WADA had a direct right to appeal to CAS under Article 75(3) without exhausting other remedies. CAS confirmed its jurisdiction, noting that neither respondent contested it.
The sole arbitrator, Alexander McLin, interpreted Article 19.3 of the FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations, concluding that intent could be established if the athlete knowingly disregarded the risk of an anti-doping violation, without needing to prove a separate intent to enhance performance. The arbitrator emphasized the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, noting the difficulty of proving specific intent. Kuru argued that his use of the substance was for legitimate medical reasons and unrelated to performance enhancement, but the arbitrator rejected this, stating that the FIFA ADR's framework does not require proof of intent to cheat, only that the athlete knowingly took the risk of a violation.
The proceedings involved multiple submissions and procedural steps, including challenges in serving documents to Kuru due to his remote location. Ultimately, the arbitrator found that Kuru had manifestly disregarded the risk of a doping violation, reinforcing the strict liability framework of anti-doping rules. The decision set aside the TFF's original six-month disqualification and imposed a four-year ineligibility period, with credit given for time already served. The case underscores the importance of athlete compliance with anti-doping regulations and the consequences of disregarding warnings about prohibited substances. The CAS ruled in favor of WADA, affirming the four-year ineligibility period for Ahmet Kuru.