The case involves Arijan Ademi, a professional football player, who appealed a decision by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) after being found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) and receiving a four-year ban. The violation was due to the detection of stanozolol metabolites in his urine sample following a match in September 2015. Stanozolol is a prohibited substance at all times, both in and out of competition. Ademi contested UEFA's decision before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing lack of intent and requesting a reduction in his suspension. The CAS panel examined several legal issues, including the admissibility of late-filed evidence, emphasizing fairness and efficiency in proceedings. Under UEFA’s Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR), an ADRV typically results in a four-year suspension, but this can be reduced if the athlete proves the violation was unintentional. Further reductions are possible if the athlete demonstrates No Fault or Negligence or No Significant Fault or Negligence and identifies the source of the prohibited substance. Ademi claimed the positive test resulted from a contaminated dietary supplement, Megamin, which he had taken for back pain. He presented evidence from multiple laboratories showing contamination in some Megamin samples, though results were inconsistent. The panel allowed additional testing of the supplements, recognizing its relevance to the case. Ademi argued he had no intention to cheat, consulted his club doctor, and exercised caution, but UEFA contended the contamination theory was implausible and suggested intentional use was more likely. The panel found Ademi met the burden of proving lack of intent, reducing his suspension to two years, but he failed to definitively establish the source of stanozolol, which was necessary for further reduction. The panel noted Ademi’s failure to purchase the supplement from a secure source or verify its integrity, concluding he did not meet the standard of No Significant Fault or Negligence. The final decision imposed a two-year suspension, effective from the date of his provisional suspension, and ruled no disqualification of his club's results. The appeal was partially upheld, amending the initial decision to reflect the reduced ban. The case highlights the complexities of anti-doping disputes, the importance of due diligence by athletes, and the balance between strict liability and fairness in assessing intent and fault. The decision was issued on 24 March 2017.