The case revolves around professional footballer Samir Nasri's appeal against UEFA's denial of a retroactive Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for an intravenous infusion he received on December 26, 2016, while on holiday in Los Angeles. The infusion, administered by Drip Doctors, consisted of 500 ml of sterile water with micronutrients to treat symptoms of dehydration, vomiting, and fever diagnosed by Dr. Sarabjit Anand. Under World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) guidelines, intravenous infusions exceeding 50 ml within six hours are prohibited unless administered in specific medical settings or with a TUE. Nasri applied for a retroactive TUE on January 21, 2017, but UEFA's TUE Committee denied the request, stating the treatment was not medically necessary and was sought for preventive health rather than an urgent need.
Nasri appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the infusion was medically justified due to his severe symptoms and impending travel. However, the CAS panel upheld UEFA's decision, emphasizing that Nasri failed to demonstrate an acute medical condition requiring the prohibited method or that withholding the infusion would significantly impair his health. The panel noted Nasri did not attempt oral rehydration, a permitted alternative, and highlighted discrepancies in medical reports, including the absence of a formal diagnosis or evidence of urgency. Additionally, the panel stressed Nasri's responsibility as an experienced athlete to ensure compliance with anti-doping rules, regardless of a doctor's recommendation.
UEFA countered that Nasri's condition was mild and manageable without intravenous treatment, and his travel plans did not constitute a medical emergency. They also pointed out inconsistencies in Nasri's account, such as initial claims about the infusion volume and timing, suggesting awareness of the violation. Expert testimony was divided, with Dr. Muñoz supporting the treatment's necessity but acknowledging incomplete medical records, while UEFA disputed the credibility of Dr. Anand's report due to his unavailability for testimony.
The CAS panel concluded Nasri did not meet the criteria for a retroactive TUE under WADA's International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (ISTUE), as there was no emergency or exceptional circumstance justifying the infusion without prior approval. The panel dismissed Nasri's appeal, reinforcing strict adherence to anti-doping regulations and athletes' accountability for compliance. The decision underscores that intent or negligence is irrelevant under the rules, and exemptions are granted only when all criteria are unequivocally met. Nasri's case highlights the challenges athletes face in justifying retroactive TUEs and the stringent standards applied to such requests.