The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an order on January 19, 2006, regarding a request for provisional measures in the case of a professional ice hockey player appealing a doping suspension. The appellant, a Ukrainian player, tested positive for norandrosterone, a metabolite of the prohibited substance nandrolone, during a championship game in May 2005. He claimed the positive result stemmed from an emergency injection of Retabolil, administered during hospitalization for acute heart failure in March 2005. The International Ice Hockey Federation Disciplinary Committee (IIHFDC) imposed a two-year suspension on November 14, 2005, which the appellant appealed on December 13, 2005, while also requesting a stay of the suspension.
The CAS panel, composed of Dirk-Reiner Martens, Richard H. McLaren, and Hans Nater, evaluated the request based on three criteria: whether the stay would protect the appellant from irreparable harm, the likelihood of success on appeal, and whether the appellant's interests outweighed those of the opposing party. The appellant argued that the suspension caused financial hardship for his family and would prevent him from registering for an upcoming championship. He also claimed new evidence—an expert opinion from Belarus's Ministry of Health—strengthened his case by confirming the Retabolil injection.
However, the panel rejected these arguments. It noted that economic and emotional hardship is an inherent consequence of any athlete's suspension and did not constitute irreparable harm. Additionally, the panel found the new evidence insufficient to justify a stay, as it lacked direct testimony from the treating physician and did not conclusively prove the appellant's lack of fault. The panel emphasized that the appellant had committed an anti-doping violation under IIHF and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) rules, requiring a two-year suspension unless he could demonstrate no fault or negligence.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed the request for a stay, allowing the suspension to remain in effect pending the full appeal. The decision underscores the strict application of anti-doping regulations and the high threshold for granting provisional measures in such cases.