The case revolves around a dispute between the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Indian wrestler Narsingh Yadav, along with the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA), concerning allegations of doping violations during the 2016 Rio Olympics. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division reviewed the decision by NADA’s Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ADDP) to exonerate Yadav, who claimed he was a victim of sabotage. Yadav tested positive for methandienone in out-of-competition tests conducted on June 25 and July 5, 2016. He argued that his food and energy drink had been tampered with by a rival’s associate, Jithesh, and provided witness statements supporting this claim. NADA’s ADDP accepted his defense, citing no fault or negligence under its Anti-Doping Rules, and allowed him to compete in the Olympics. WADA challenged this decision, arguing the dispute arose from the ADDP’s exoneration on August 1, 2016, not the earlier test dates.
The CAS panel, composed of Mark Hovell, Jinwon Park, and Andrea Carska-Sheppard, examined the timeline and evidence presented. Despite Yadav’s claims of sabotage, the panel found insufficient evidence to conclusively prove his innocence, highlighting inconsistencies in testimonies and the lack of direct proof linking Jithesh to the doping. Expert testimony from Professor Ayotte indicated that the methandienone concentrations in Yadav’s samples were inconsistent with a one-time ingestion, undermining his sabotage claim. The panel concluded that Yadav’s scenario was implausible and noted the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, which holds athletes responsible for substances in their bodies regardless of intent.
Consequently, the CAS overturned NADA’s decision, imposing a four-year ban on Yadav, effectively barring him from the Rio Olympics. The ruling disqualified all competitive results achieved by Yadav from June 25, 2016, onward, leading to the forfeiture of any medals, points, or prizes earned during that period. The panel dismissed WADA’s request for legal costs, as procedures before the CAS Ad Hoc Division are cost-free. The decision underscored the importance of robust evidence in anti-doping cases and reinforced WADA’s authority to appeal national agency rulings. It also clarified that disputes challenging exoneration decisions are considered "in connection with" the Olympics if they affect participation. The case highlights the procedural complexities and time-sensitive nature of anti-doping adjudications during major sporting events, as well as the high burden of proof required to establish unintentional violations or sabotage.
The final decision set aside the earlier ruling by NADA and imposed the four-year sanction, crediting any provisional suspension served by Yadav. The panel partially upheld WADA’s application but rejected the request for costs. The outcome reinforced the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances found in their samples, regardless of intent or claims of sabotage. The case serves as a significant precedent in the enforcement of anti-doping rules and the consequences of violations.