The case revolves around an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the Indian National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) concerning professional football player Dane Pereira, who tested positive for the prohibited substance Nandrolone, an anabolic steroid, during an in-competition doping control in February 2015. Initially, NADA's Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel imposed a one-year suspension, ruling that Pereira was unaware of the prohibited substance in his prescribed medication and that the violation was not intentional. The Panel also found no significant fault or negligence, reducing the standard two-year suspension by half. WADA appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that Pereira's violation should be considered intentional under anti-doping rules.
The CAS panel, presided over by Prof. Martin Schimke, ruled that an athlete can commit an anti-doping violation with "indirect intent" (dolus eventualis) if they knowingly disregard a significant risk of violating the rules. The panel emphasized that athletes must verify whether any medication contains prohibited substances, regardless of medical advice. The CAS found that Pereira had multiple opportunities to check his medication but failed to conduct even basic research, demonstrating a manifest disregard for anti-doping regulations. Consequently, the panel concluded that his violation was intentional, overturning the one-year suspension and imposing a standard two-year ban, effective from the date of his provisional suspension.
In subsequent proceedings, WADA pushed for a stricter four-year ineligibility period, arguing that Pereira’s actions demonstrated significant fault. The case involved delays due to Pereira’s requests for extensions and legal aid. During the hearing, Pereira testified that he took the banned substance following a bike accident and medical treatment but failed to follow proper anti-doping protocols. WADA contended that Pereira, as a professional athlete, should have verified the medication’s contents, especially since the drug’s label clearly indicated it contained Nandrolone. The Sole Arbitrator rejected Pereira’s claim of no significant fault, noting his failure to conduct basic checks or inform his doctor of his anti-doping obligations.
The arbitrator upheld WADA’s appeal, imposing a four-year ineligibility period starting from the date of provisional suspension (16 April 2015). The decision reinforced the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, emphasizing athletes' personal responsibility for compliance, even when relying on medical advice. The ruling clarified that indirect intent suffices to establish an intentional violation, underscoring the importance of due diligence by athletes. The case highlights the severe consequences of failing to adhere to anti-doping protocols and the limited scope for leniency in such violations. The final decision dismissed all other requests for relief, maintaining the integrity of anti-doping measures in sports.