CAS 2022 A 9341
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 22 Apr 2024
Why it matters
This case highlights the strict liability principle in anti-doping and the critical importance of athletes proving lack of intent to reduce sanctions for non-specified prohibited substances. It underscores the CAS's role in ensuring consistent application of the World Anti-Doping Code and FIFA's Anti-Doping Rules across national federations, correcting misinterpretations that could lead to unduly lenient penalties. The decision reinforces that mere oral statements or speculative explanations are insufficient to meet the burden of proof for reducing a standard four-year ban.
Summary
Abdullah Alrouwely, a Saudi Arabian football player, tested positive for Amphetamine (a non-specified stimulant) after a match on May 18, 2022. He claimed he unknowingly ingested it in tea at a wedding. The Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC) initially imposed a 90-day ineligibility period, treating Amphetamine as a "Substance of Abuse" under its rules. FIFA appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the sanction was too lenient and based on a misinterpretation of the rules. The CAS applied the FIFA Anti-Doping Rules (2021 edition), which incorporate the World Anti-Doping Code. Specifically, Article 20(1)(a) of the FIFA ADR states a four-year ineligibility period for non-specified substances unless the athlete proves the violation was not intentional. Article 20(3) defines "intentional" and allows for a non-intentional finding if the substance was used "out-of-competition" in a context unrelated to sport performance. The burden of proof for lack of intent rests with the athlete (Article 68(2) FIFA ADR). The CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration governed the appeal procedure, including rules on admissibility of evidence (Article R56). The Sole Arbitrator found that Alrouwely had committed an anti-doping rule violation due to the presence of a prohibited substance. The core issue was the sanction. The Arbitrator determined that Amphetamine is a "non-specified substance" and not a "Substance of Abuse" as SAADC had wrongly concluded. Therefore, the standard sanction was four years, unless Alrouwely could prove lack of intent. The Arbitrator rejected Alrouwely's late attempts to introduce witness and expert testimony, finding no "exceptional circumstances" to justify the delay (Article R56 CAS Code). Furthermore, the Arbitrator concluded that Alrouwely failed to prove, by a balance of probabilities, that the ingestion was "out-of-competition" and unrelated to sport performance. His explanations were deemed speculative and uncorroborated by sufficient evidence. Consequently, the Arbitrator found that Alrouwely had not disproved intent. The CAS upheld FIFA's appeal, set aside the SAADC's 90-day ban, and imposed a four-year period of ineligibility on Alrouwely, effective from the date of the CAS award, with credit for the provisional suspension served from June 21, 2022, to September 20, 2022. The costs of arbitration were split 50/50 between Alrouwely and SAADC, with SAADC jointly liable for Alrouwely's share.
The detail
Parties: FIFA v. Abdullah Alrouwely & Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee
Case number: CAS 2022 A 9341
Outcome: The Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld FIFA's appeal, set aside the SAADC's decision, and declared Mr. Abdullah Alrouwely ineligible for a period of four years, with credit for time already served.
Applicable law: FIFA Anti-Doping Rules (2021 edition), World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), Saudi Anti-Doping Rules (SAADC ADR), CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration, Swiss Civil Code (for FIFA's status).
Issues in play: The primary legal collision was between FIFA's interpretation of its Anti-Doping Rules, which align with the WADA Code, and the SAADC's initial misapplication of its own rules, treating amphetamine as a 'Substance of Abuse' with a reduced sanction. The case hinged on the burden of proof for the athlete to establish lack of intent for a 'non-specified substance' to reduce the standard four-year ban.
Read the full decision at Court of Arbitration for Sport (football, via FIFA) ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.