The case revolves around Danis Zaripov, a Russian professional ice hockey player, who faced an anti-doping rule violation after testing positive for Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and Pseudoephedrine during an in-competition doping test on 29 January 2017. While the Pseudoephedrine was attributed to a prescribed medication (RhinoPRONT) and fell below the prohibited threshold, the source of HCTZ remained unclear. The International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) Disciplinary Board imposed a two-year suspension on Zaripov starting from 23 May 2017, as he did not attend the hearing or provide sufficient explanations. Zaripov appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 11 August 2017, seeking to overturn or reduce the sanction. During the appeal, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations, leading to a suspension of the case. On 7 November 2017, they reached a settlement agreement, which was submitted to CAS for formalization. The agreement acknowledged that Zaripov did not intentionally dope, attributing the Pseudoephedrine to permissible medication and the HCTZ to a contaminated product, supported by new expert evidence not previously available. Under Swiss law, the CAS Sole Arbitrator, Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, verified the settlement's legitimacy and incorporated it into a consent award, overturning the IIHF's original decision. The settlement reduced Zaripov's suspension to six months, ending on 23 November 2017, allowing him to resume participation in IIHF-authorized activities. The agreement included confidentiality clauses, with only an agreed press release to be made public, and each party bore its own legal costs. The consent award granted the settlement res judicata effect, ensuring enforceability and concluding the dispute amicably. This case highlights the role of CAS in facilitating settlements, the importance of new evidence in reassessing doping violations, and the balance between upholding anti-doping regulations and ensuring procedural fairness. The resolution underscores how arbitration can provide a constructive path to resolving disputes while maintaining the integrity of sports governance.