The case centers on Eid Mohamed Al-Suweidi, a professional Emirati handball player, who appealed a decision by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) concerning the reduction of his ineligibility period for doping violations. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reviewed the case, focusing on whether Al-Suweidi's substantial assistance in anti-doping efforts justified a reduction in his suspension. Al-Suweidi had two anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs), both involving stanozolol, an anabolic steroid. The first violation in 2011 led to a two-year suspension, later reduced to one year. The second violation occurred in 2012, just before his return to competition, resulting in an eight-year suspension.
Al-Suweidi sought a reduction under Article 10.6.1 of the WADA Code, which allows for suspension of ineligibility if an athlete provides substantial assistance in combating doping. The UAE National Anti-Doping Organization (UAE NADO) supported his request, citing his participation in anti-doping workshops and reporting illegal drug trafficking in gyms, which led to sanctions against violators. However, WADA denied the request, emphasizing the severity of his violations and the lack of evidence that his assistance led to convictions of other athletes. The CAS panel upheld WADA's decision, noting that while substantial assistance can justify reducing suspensions, the discretion lies with the disciplinary body. The panel found no gross disproportion in WADA's decision, considering Al-Suweidi's repeated violations, the timing of his second offense, and his inability to explain how the banned substance entered his system.
Al-Suweidi later appealed to CAS, arguing that his initial violations were not as severe as judged and that his ineligibility period should have expired under the 2015 WADA Code. He also claimed unequal treatment compared to other athletes. WADA countered that the 18-month reduction already granted was generous, given the seriousness of his violations. The CAS panel confirmed its jurisdiction and applied the WADA Code, with Swiss law as a subsidiary. The panel dismissed Al-Suweidi's argument for a reduced sanction under the 2015 WADA Code, stating it was irrelevant to the substantial assistance decision. The panel emphasized the seriousness of his second ADRV and the limited impact of his assistance, which only implicated low-level athletes in a non-Olympic sport.
Ultimately, the CAS panel upheld WADA's decision, concluding that the 18-month suspension was fair and even generous. The appeal was dismissed, and WADA's original decision was confirmed. The case highlights the complexities of anti-doping regulations and the balance between rewarding cooperation and enforcing strict penalties for doping violations. It underscores the importance of consistent application of anti-doping rules and the limited scope for reducing sanctions based on substantial assistance unless it significantly advances anti-doping efforts. The ruling reaffirms the discretionary power of disciplinary bodies in such cases and the high threshold for overturning their decisions.