The case involves Bauyrzhan Islamkhan, a professional football player from Kazakhstan, who appealed a two-year suspension imposed by the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) for an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV). The violation arose from the detection of Methylhexanamine (MHA), a prohibited stimulant, in his urine sample during a match in September 2020. Islamkhan did not contest the violation but argued that the substance entered his system through contaminated products provided by his former club, Al Ain FC, or the Kazakh national team. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reviewed the case and upheld the suspension, emphasizing that Islamkhan failed to meet the burden of proof required to demonstrate the source of the prohibited substance.
The CAS panel applied the balance of probability standard, requiring Islamkhan to prove his claim was at least 51% likely, supported by actual or scientific evidence. While acknowledging the challenges of proving "negative facts," the panel noted that Islamkhan could not shift the burden of proof entirely to his club or rely on the club's lack of cooperation as a defense. The delay in sample analysis due to the COVID-19 pandemic was deemed justified and did not invalidate the results. Islamkhan's argument that the MHA came from contaminated supplements or medication was rejected because he failed to identify a specific product or provide sufficient evidence. The panel highlighted his responsibility to ensure no prohibited substances entered his body, regardless of who provided the supplements. His claims about other teammates facing disciplinary actions for doping were dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence or testimony. The panel also discounted the evidentiary value of a polygraph test Islamkhan submitted, noting its limited reliability and incomplete questioning.
Islamkhan had consumed various supplements and medications, including painkillers, during his time with the Kazakh national team and Al Ain FC. Despite his claims of strict dietary control, the panel found his explanations insufficient to meet the required standard of proof. The AFC's decision to impose a two-year suspension was upheld, as Islamkhan failed to demonstrate how the prohibited substance entered his system or prove mitigating circumstances warranting a reduced penalty. The case underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and the high evidentiary burden on athletes to contest violations. The CAS panel dismissed the appeal, confirming the original decision and emphasizing that athletes must take personal responsibility for substances in their bodies, regardless of intent or negligence. The ruling highlights the complexities of proving unintentional doping and the stringent standards applied in such disputes.