Bassem Mohammed v. Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI)

VI. JURISDICTION

50. Article R47 of the Code provides as follows:

(operative part of 2 June 2022)

51. “An appeal against the decision of a federation, association or sports-related body may be filed with CAS if the statutes or regulations of the said body so provide or if the parties have concluded a specific arbitration agreement and if the Appellant has exhausted the legal remedies available to it prior to the appeal, in accordance with the statutes or regulations of that body.

An appeal may be filed with CAS against an award rendered by CAS acting as a first instance tribunal if such appeal has been expressly provided by the rules of the federation or sports-body concerned”.

52. Article 13.2 and 13.2.1 of the ADRHA provides that:

“A decision that an anti-doping rule violation was committed […] may be appealed exclusively as provided in this Article 13.2.

[…]

In cases arising from participation in an International Event or in cases involving International-Level Athletes, the decision may be appealed exclusively to CAS”.

53. The Sole Arbitrator notes that the Decision qualifies as a “decision that an anti-doping rule violation was committed”, and that the Athlete is an International-Level Athlete involved in an International Event.

54. The Sole Arbitrator therefore finds that CAS holds jurisdiction to decide on the present matter. Moreover, the Sole Arbitrator notes that jurisdiction of the CAS is not disputed by either party and both signed the Order of Procedure, further evidence of acceptance and appropriateness of CAS jurisdiction.

VII. ADMISSIBILITY

55. Article R49 of the Code provides as follows:

“In the absence of a time limit set in the statutes or regulations of the federation, association or sports-related body concerned, or in a previous agreement, the time limit for appeal shall be twenty-one days from the receipt of the decision appealed against. The Division President shall not initiate a procedure if the statement of appeal is, on its face, late and shall so notify the person who filed the document. When a procedure is initiated, a party may request the Division President or the President of the Panel, if a Panel has been already constituted, to terminate it if the statement of appeal is late. The Division President or the President of the Panel renders her/his decision after considering any submission made by the other parties”.

56. The Sole Arbitrator notes that the Statement of Appeal was filed with the CAS Court Office on 4 January 2022, i.e. within the time limit of 21 days from receipt of the Decision appealed against on 17 December 2021. Moreover, the other requirements provided for under Article R48 of the Code are also fulfilled. The appeal is therefore admissible.

(operative part of 2 June 2022)

VIII. APPLICABLE LAW

57. Article R58 of the Code provides as follows:

“The Panel shall decide the dispute according to the applicable regulations and, subsidiarily, to the rules of law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, according to the law of the country in which the federation, association or sports-related body which has issued the challenged decision is domiciled or according to the rules of law the Panel deems appropriate. In the latter case, the Panel shall give reasons for its decision”.

58. Article 38.3 of the FEI Statutes further provides that:

“All disputes shall be settled in accordance with Swiss law”.

59. The Sole Arbitrator shall therefore apply FEI’s rules and regulations, in particular the FEI ADRHA, and, subsidiarily, Swiss law as the law chosen by the Parties. Moreover, since the relevant facts occurred on 13 October 2019, the Sole Arbitrator shall, in principle, apply the ADRHA version that was effective as from 1 January 2015.

60. The Sole Arbitrator shall revert to the issue regarding the application of the 2021 ADRHA as a matter of lex mitior in the next section regarding the merits.

IX. MERITS

61. In the present proceedings, the Athlete does not dispute the presence in the Sample of a prohibited substance, carboxy-THC, above the decision limit of 180 ng/mL provided for in the WADA’s Guidance note for Anti-doping Organisations for Substances of Abuse under the WADA Code 2021, which constituted an ADRV under Article 2.1 of the ADRHA.

62. The present appeal only concerns the consequences to be applied to such ADRV. As a result of the Parties’ requests and submissions, the Sole Arbitrator shall address the following issues:

i. Shall the appropriate period of ineligibility be reduced based on the Lex Mitior principle?

ii. Shall the appropriate period of ineligibility be eliminated or reduced based on No (Significant) Fault or Negligence?

iii. What are the consequences of the above?

63. The Sole Arbitrator will consider each of those issues separately and in sequence.

A. The Lex Mitior Principle

64. The Appellant contends that he should benefit from more lenient rules that were adopted after the rules that were applied by the FEI Tribunal in the Decision. Indeed, while the 2015

(operative part of 2 June 2022)

version of the ADRHA provided for a standard 2-year period of ineligibility for an AAF of carboxy-THC, the 2021 version of the ADRHA substantially lowered the possible period of ineligibility to three months only, with a further possible reduction to one month, pursuant to article 10.2.4 of the 2021 ADRHA.

65. The FEI agrees with the applicability of the Lex Mitior Principle in theory, but submits that Article 10.2.4 of the 2021 ADRHA cannot apply in the present matter as the requirements for this provision to apply are not fulfilled.

66. The Sole Arbitrator first recalls that the Lex Mitior principle, which is provided for under the WADC (see Article 25.2 of the 2015 WADC and Article 27.2 of the 2021 WADC) and in the 2021 ADRHA (see Article 25.7.2 of the 2021 ADRHA), requires that, where a rule has been replaced in the meantime by a more lenient rule, the more lenient rule replaces the previous rule, to the benefit of the accused athlete. CAS case law continuously applied the lex mitior principle in its case law related to doping cases:

“The lex mitior principle prevents the continued applicability of a disciplinary rule after it has been replaced by a more lenient one, and reflects, in favour of the accused, the evolution of a legislative policy, which translates into rules the opinion that the same infringement is less severe than it was previously perceived” (CAS

67. Moreover, the Parties agree with the applicability of the lex mitior doctrine as a matter of principle.

68. Article 10.2.4 of the 2021 ADRHA provides as follows:

“10.2.4 Notwithstanding any other provision in Article 10.2, where the anti-doping rule violation involves a Substance of Abuse:

10.2.4.1 If the Athlete can establish that any ingestion or Use occurred Out-of-Competition and was unrelated to sport performance, then the period of Ineligibility shall be three (3) months Ineligibility.

In addition, the period of Ineligibility calculated under this Article 10.2.4.1 may be reduced to one (1) month if the Athlete or other Person satisfactorily completes a Substance of Abuse treatment program approved by the FEI. The period of Ineligibility established in this Article 10.2.4.1 is not subject to any reduction based on any provision in Article 10.6.4.

[…]”.

69. The Sole Arbitrator notes that according to the 2021 ADRHA, the Athlete would potentially be sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of three months with a possibility to further reduce such period to one month, which is a much more lenient treatment than the ADRHA, which provides for a standard period of ineligibility of two years.

70. However, the wording of Article 10.2.4 of the 2021 ADRHA makes it clear that such reduced period of ineligibility can only apply if the use of the substance of abuse – carboxy-THC being

(operative part of 2 June 2022)

a substance of abuse under 2021 ADRHA – occurred Out-of-Competition and unrelated to sport performance.

71. The Appellant accepted that, since the FEI met its burden to establish, in principle, a violation of article 2.1 of the ADRHA, the burden is now upon him to show that his consumption of cannabis occurred Out-of-Competition and unrelated to sport performance. Furthermore, the Appellant accepts that he must meet this burden by the standard of balance of probabilities, which is also the view of the FEI. The Sole Arbitrator therefore shall verify whether such requirements are met in the case at hand.

a. Did the Athlete consume Cannabis Out-of-Competition exclusively?

72. The Appellant admits that, while he was living in the Netherlands, he consumed cannabis on a daily basis and in large amounts: He would purchase from coffee shops paying cash and would consume at home alone. He would usually smoke 3 to 10 joints per day only at night before going to sleep and never before riding and trainings. He contends that he last smoked just before leaving for Morocco for the Event on 8 October 2019; his consumption was therefore Out-of-Competition. The FEI contends that the Athlete did not provide enough evidence that he would smoke cannabis in large amounts while he was living in the Netherlands, and it is further not plausible that the Appellant consumed cannabis Out-of- Competition given the concentration level in his Sample. According to the FEI, the concentration level in the Sample was way above the decision limit of 180 ng/mL provided in WADA’s Guidance Note for Anti-doping Organisations for Substances of Abuse under the WADA Code 2021, which indicates that the Athlete used cannabis In-Competition rather than Out-of-Competition. Moreover, Prof. Huestis confirmed that it is not plausible that the Appellant’s consumption was Out-of-Competition.

73. The Sole Arbitrator considers that the Athlete’s statement, in which he admitted that he used to smoke cannabis in large amounts just in the period prior to the Event, is credible, especially considering the embarrassment such admission caused to him and his family in Qatar. This is all the more so that the Athlete was under contract with the armed services in Qatar at the time of the relevant facts, and the discovery of his consumption of cannabis led to disciplinary consequences against him within the armed services. Moreover, since he would purchase mostly in cash and smoke alone, it appears only normal that the Appellant did not produce any receipts for his purchases nor any testimony of his entourage in support of his admission. The Appellant however provided the name of the coffee shop where he would purchase cannabis joints and the type of joints he would smoke.

74. The Sole Arbitrator now turns to the question of whether the Appellant’s consumption was Out-of-Competition. The Athlete bears the burden of proving, on balance of probabilities, that his consumption was Out-of-Competition. As a first remark, the Parties agree that the In-Competition period started at 13:00 on 9 October 2019. As a result, to be Out-of- Competition, the consumption needs to have been any time before 9 October 2019 at 13:00.

(operative part of 2 June 2022)

75. Mr Ihar Nekrashevich explained that “it is impossible to calculate the most likely time of cannabis intake that could have caused the Sample result”. The Sole Arbitrator accepts that this creates an evidentiary difficulty for the Appellant, which needs to be taken into account in the assessment of the evidence on record.

76. The Sole Arbitrator first notes that WADA’s Guidance Note for Anti-doping Organisations for Substances of Abuse under the WADA Code 2021 provides as follows:

“Presence of carboxy-THC at a concentration above (>) the Decision Limit (DL) of 180 ng/mL should be considered most likely to correspond to an In-Competition use of cannabis”.

77. In the present matter, the concentration level found in the Sample amounts to 2955 ng/mL, which is way above the decision limit of 180 ng/mL provided in the WADA’s Guidance Note for Anti-doping organisations for Substances of Abuse under the WADA Code 2021. In the Sole Arbitrator’s view, such a high concentration level therefore clearly corresponds to an In- Competition use of cannabis within the meaning of the WADA Code 2021. The Sole Arbitrator further notes that the In-Competition period according to the WADA Guidance Note [“[t]he period commencing at 11:59 p.m. on the day before a Competition in which the Athlete is scheduled to participate through the end of such Competition and the Sample collection process related to such Competition”] started at 11:59 pm on 9 October 2019. Therefore, the Sole Arbitrator notes that, according to the WADA’s Guidance Note, the Athlete used cannabis in the period between 9 October on 11:59 pm and 13 October 2019.

78. At the hearing, the Appellant submitted that he last used cannabis just before leaving for Morocco for the Event on 8 October 2019. In support of his position, the Appellant produced the expert opinion of Mr Ihar Nekrashevich, who confirmed that it is “pharmacokinetically possible” that the Athlete “used high doses of cannabis on a daily basis”, such as “220 average cannabis cigarettes per week” or “73 cannabis-rich cigarettes per week”, in order for “such a high concentration” to be found in the Sample taking into account that “the Athlete did not use cannabis between 9 – 13 October 2019”.

79. The Sole Arbitrator is not convinced by the Athlete’s expert’s opinion on this point. Indeed, Mr Ihar Nekrashevich also stated in his expert opinion that “it must be noted that this value reflects only the lower end of the range for the Athlete and even higher doses would be required to cover the remainder of that range”. Moreover, Mr Ihar Nekrashevich also stated that “from a pharmacokinetic perspective – it is also possible that the Sample Result could have been caused by the use of cannabis at some point between 9 – 13 October 2019”, i.e. essentially in the In-Competition period.

80. Moreover, Prof. Huestis explained at the hearing that it was “highly implausible” that the AAF resulted from the Athlete’s Out-of-Competition consumption of cannabis, and that it was “highly likely (far more than 51%)” that the Athlete used cannabis 5,7 to 6,7 days after he indicated the he stopped his cannabis use, i.e. around 13 October 2019. The Sole Arbitrator notes that the Appellant argued that Prof. Huestis had a predisposition because of her open academic position against cannabis spanning decades and within the WADA committee of which she is a member. The Sole Arbitrator is however not convinced about such objection

(operative part of 2 June 2022)

which is not supported by any evidence on record: the fact that she has expressed an opinion in the framework of her scientific activities does not mean per se that her opinion in the present matter should be disregarded, though the Arbitrator accepts that if established it should be weighted in light of the evidence and the nature of the present dispute.

81. Finally, the Sole Arbitrator also notes that the Appellant argues that the AAF could also result from In-Competition passive or unintentional exposure to cannabis at the Shisha Bar of the Sofitel Hotel the Athlete was staying at during the Event. As a result, the Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete failed to demonstrate he consumed cannabis Out-of-Competition exclusively.

b. Was the Athlete’s consumption unrelated to sport performance?

82. The Appellant contends that cannabis is today rightly considered as a substance of abuse because it is often used in a recreational context and because it clearly has no performanceenhancing effect for Equestrian sports. The Athlete therefore contends that his use is unrelated to sport performance. On the other hand, in the FEI’s view, the fact that the Athlete used to smoke cannabis to handle anxiety before going to sleep, clearly means that the Appellant’s use cannot be considered unrelated to sport performance. The FEI also makes the point that the use of cannabis at any time near to riding horses creates a potentially dangerous situation.

83. The Sole Arbitrator first notes that since the Appellant failed to demonstrate that he used cannabis Out-of-Competition exclusively, one of the two cumulative requirements for Article 10.2.4 of the 2021 ADRHA to apply as lex mitior, is not fulfilled. As a result, there is no need to address the issue of whether or not the Athlete’s cannabis consumption was unrelated to sport performance in order to assess the possibility to reduce the period of ineligibility on the basis of Article 10.2.4 of the 2021 ADRHA.

84. For the sake of completeness, however, the Sole Arbitrator finds that, in the context of the present case, the Athlete’s consumption of cannabis is clearly unrelated to sport performance. The Athlete would smoke at night after training, which means that his consumption was always unrelated to, and occurred after, his sport activities. The Sole Arbitrator is moreover not convinced by the argument put forward by the FEI that the fact that merely because cannabis permitted the Athlete to sleep better, the substance has a sport performanceenhancing effect or purpose. Athletes take vitamins, and substances found on the Prohibited List which are allowed out of competition, to assist with recovery out of competition, and they eat food (including food designed to enhance athletic performance), sleep, and do other things that benefit their sport performance, and that simple desire to recover or sleep better or whatever is not per se a sport performance enhancing intention absent indicia of some other intention to enhance sport performance impermissibly. Simply trying to get through life, even life as an elite athlete, more comfortably, in a permissible manner, cannot, by itself, give rise to impermissible intention.

(operative part of 2 June 2022)

c. Conclusion

85. The Sole Arbitrator therefore finds that the Appellant’s submission that the period of ineligibility shall be reduced on the basis of Article 10.2.4 of the 2021 ADRHA as Lex Mitior, is dismissed.

B. The No (Significant) Fault or Negligence Assertions

a. Regulatory framework

86. Since it is demonstrated that the Athlete consumed Cannabis In-competition, which constitutes an ADRV under Article 2.1 of the ADRHA, the Athlete shall be subject to a standard period of ineligibility of two years, in accordance with Article 10.2.2 of the ADRHA subject to any reduction of the ineligibility period based on No Fault or Negligence or No Significant Fault or Negligence (“N(S)FN”).

87. Pursuant to Article 10.4 of the ADRHA, “If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated”.

88. According to the definition list in the ADRHA, No Fault or Negligence (“NFN”) refers to the situation in which “[t]he Athlete or other Person’s establishing that he or she did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost caution, that he or she had Used or been administered the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method or otherwise violated an anti-doping rule. Except in the case of a Minor, for any violation of Article 2.1, the Athlete must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his or her system”.

89. Moreover, pursuant to Article 10.5 of the ADRHA, “Where the anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance, and the Athlete or other Person can establish No Significant Fault or Negligence, then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two years of Ineligibility, depending on the Athlete’s or other Person’s degree of Fault”.

90. According to the definition list in the ADRHA, No Significant Fault or Negligence (“NSFN”) refers to the situation in which “[t]he Athlete or other Person’s establishing that his or her fault or negligence, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances and taking into account the criteria for No Fault or Negligence, was not significant in relationship to the anti-doping rule violation. Except in the case of a Minor, for any violation of Article 2.1, the Athlete must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his or her system”. Moreover, the footnote to the definition provides that: “For Cannabinoids, an Athlete may establish No Significant Fault or Negligence by clearly demonstrating that the context of the Use was unrelated to sport performance”.

91. Based on the above definitions, in order for the Athlete to be eligible for N(S)FN, he shall first establish how the prohibited substance entered his or her system.

(operative part of 2 June 2022)

92. Moreover, to establish NFN, the Athlete shall further establish that he did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost caution, that he violated an anti-doping rule.

93. To establish NSFN, the Athlete shall establish that his fault or negligence, viewed in the totality of circumstances, was not significant in relationship to the anti-doping rule violation. Finally, since this matter concerns the consumption of cannabinoids, for the Appellant to establish NSFN, he shall demonstrate that the use of cannabis was unrelated to sport performance.

94. Finally, the Parties accept that the applicable standard of proof is that of balance of probabilities.

b. Application in the case at hand

95. The Sole Arbitrator shall first determine whether the Appellant established how the prohibited substance entered his system. In the present matter, the Sole Arbitrator already found that the Athlete successfully established that he would consume cannabis on a daily basis and in large amounts while he was living in the Netherlands prior to the Event (see above, para. 73).

96. The Appellant further submits that he may have been exposed to passive smoking of cannabis, hashish or kief, while smoking shisha at the Shisha Bar of the Sofitel Hotel in Rabat, Morocco, during his stay for the purpose of the Event. The written statement of the Qatari team manager, Mr Mohammed Al-Thani, confirms the Athlete’s visit to the Shisha Bar during his stay together with the rest of the team as well as the Team Manager’s enquiry at the Shisha Bar of the Sofitel Hotel as to how the shishas were prepared and the substances they contained. In his written statement, the Team’s Manager concludes that, “All the precautions were taken in order to avoid such contamination and the athletes were very strictly followed and supervised during the entire competition. The only way these positive samples can be explained should therefore be the fact that, unknown to the team and the athletes, cannabis (or kief) was mixed with the shisha they used in the lounge bar”.

97. The Sole Arbitrator accepts that (i) the Athlete, together with the other members of the Qatari team, spent some relaxing time at the Shisha Bar of the Sofitel Hotel in Rabat during the Event; (ii) the Team’s Manager took some precautionary measures by enquiring as to the type of shisha that was prepared at the Shisha Bar and what type of substances the shishas contained. The Sole Arbitrator therefore finds that the Athlete established on the balance of probabilities, that – in addition to having consumed cannabis in large amounts prior to the Event on a daily basis– it cannot be excluded that, by spending time at the Shisha Bar of the Sofitel Hotel, the Athlete was exposed to passive smoking of cannabis, hashish or kief, as a result of other visitors in the Shisha Bar consuming such substances. As a result, the Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete successfully established how the prohibited substance entered his system.

(operative part of 2 June 2022)

98. However, in the Sole Arbitrator’s view, since the Athlete used to consume cannabis in large amounts on a daily basis in the Netherlands where he used to live, and by confirming that it was illegal to consume cannabis in competitions or to travel abroad with cannabis, it is clear that he knew or at least he ought to have known, that his actions might result in causing an anti-doping rule violation. The Sole Arbitrator therefore finds that the ineligibility period cannot be reduced on the basis of NFN.

99. The Sole Arbitrator now turns to the examination of whether the Athlete’s ineligibility period could be reduced based on NSFN. In order to establish NSFN, the Athlete may establish that his consumption of cannabinoids was unrelated to sport performance. The Sole Arbitrator already found that the Athlete’s consumption of cannabis in large amounts on a daily basis prior to the Event at night after training, was unrelated to sport performance (see above para. 84). The same clearly applies to the Athlete’s possible passive exposure to cannabis or kief, as a result of other visitors in the Shisha Bar consuming such substances: such visits to the Shisha Bar were of a purely recreational nature and unrelated to sport performance. The Sole Arbitrator therefore concludes that the Athlete’s consumption of cannabinoids was unrelated to sport performance and the Athlete is therefore eligible for NFSN.

100. The issue of whether an athlete’s fault or negligence is “significant” has been much discussed in the CAS jurisprudence, and chiefly so with respect to the various editions of the WADC (e.g., in CAS 2013/A/3327 & 3335 as well as inter alia CAS 2004/A/690; CAS 2005/A/830; 2012/A/3029; CAS 2017/A/5301 & 5302). These cases offer guidance to the Sole Arbitrator. It is, however, to be underlined that all cases are “fact specific” and that no doctrine of binding precedent applies to the CAS jurisprudence.

101. In order to determine which category of fault or negligence is applicable in a particular case, CAS panels consider it helpful to analyse both the objective and the subjective levels of fault. While the objective element describes what standard of care could have been expected from a reasonable person in a given athlete’s situation, the subjective element describes what could have been expected from that particular athlete, with regard to his personal capacities (See CAS

102. The Sole Arbitrator observes that, in light of CAS jurisprudence (CAS 2013/A/3327 & 3335)as well as the subsequent amendments of the WADC and updated jurisprudence (CAS 2017/A/5301 & 5302), a distinction must be made between the following two categories of fault within the context of NSF:

− “normal” degree of fault: from 12 to 24 months with a standard normal degree leading to an 18-months period of ineligibility;

− “light” degree of fault: from 0 to 12 months with a standard light degree leading to a 6-months period of ineligibility (cf. CAS 2017/A/5301, paras. 194-195; CAS

(operative part of 2 June 2022)

103. In the present case, the Sole Arbitrator notes the following elements: Against the Athlete:

• The Athlete is an adult educated man with a long sporting career, who has competed in the Olympic Games, and is therefore educated on anti-doping rules.

• The Athlete knew cannabis qualifies as a Specified Substance prohibited incompetition under FEI rules;

• The Athlete admitted that, while he was living in the Netherlands, he was a chronic cannabis smoker and that, as a result, he used to smoke large amounts of cannabis on a daily basis just prior the Event; and

• While in Rabat for the purpose of the Event, the Athlete chose to smoke shisha at the Shisha Bar of the Sofitel Hotel in Rabat, thereby running the risk of passive exposure to prohibited substances.

• The Athlete’s Sample shows a very high concentration of Carboxy-THC; In favour of the Athlete:

• Smoking shisha is common practice in Arab countries;

• The Athlete was staying in five-star hotel in Rabat (i.e. Sofitel Hotel) and his Team Manager had enquired about the composition of the shisha served at the Shisha Bar and how they were prepared.

• The Athlete never tested positive before despite being a chronic consumer of cannabis.

104. In the present matter, the Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete’s objective level of fault is “normal” i.e., to be placed within the higher category within the context of the NSF analysis. The Sole Arbitrator notes in this regard that the very high level of concentration of Carboxy- THC in the Athlete’s Sample makes it impossible to believe that the Athlete consumed cannabis out-of-competition exclusively. In consuming such large amounts while he was incompetition, the Athlete not only put himself in danger but also the horses. Similarly, by smoking shisha at the Shisha Bar of the Sofitel Hotel during the Event, the Athlete accepted the risk of being passively or possibly actively exposed to cannabis or kief, which is often used instead or with the shisha tobacco in Morocco. The Sole Arbitrator is however sympathetic to the fact that the Team Manager had enquired about the shisha composition at the Shisha Bar of the Hotel and had been reassured as to the fact that it contained no illegal substance. As a result, the Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete’s appropriate period of ineligibility is two (2) years.

(operative part of 2 June 2022)

C. Consequences

a. Commencement of the Ineligibility Period

105. Article 10.11 of the ADRHA provides as follows:

“10.11 Commencement of Ineligibility Period

Except as provided below, the period of Ineligibility shall start on the date of the final hearing decision providing for Ineligibility or, if the hearing is waived or there is no hearing, on the date Ineligibility is accepted or otherwise imposed.

10.11.1 Delays Not Attributable to the Athlete or other Person

Where there have been substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of Doping Control not attributable to the Athlete or other Person the FEI Tribunal may start the period of Ineligibility at an earlier date commencing as early as the date of Sample collection or the date on which another anti-doping rule violation last occurred. All competitive results achieved during the period of Ineligibility, including retroactive Ineligibility, shall be Disqualified”.

106. The Parties agree that the first instance proceedings before the FEI Tribunal suffered from substantial delays, which were - at least in part - not attributable to the Athlete. As a result, the Parties agree to apply Article 10.11.1 of the ADRHA (or corresponding Article 10.13.1 of the ADRHA 2021) in the present matter. The Sole Arbitrator therefore finds that the ineligibility period shall start on 13 October 2019, i.e. the date of the Sample collection, and end on 12 October 2020.

b. Disqualification of Results

107. Article 9.1 of the ADRHA provides as follows:

“An anti-doping rule violation in Individual Sports in connection with an In-Competition test automatically leads to Disqualification of the result obtained in that Competition with all resulting Consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes. Where applicable, consequences to teams are detailed in Article 11”.

108. Moreover, Article 10.1 of the ADRHA provides that “[a]n anti-doping rule violation occurring during or in connection with an Event may, upon decision of the ruling body of the Event, lead to Disqualification of all of the Athlete's individual results obtained in that Event with all Consequences (and the resulting consequences to teams as provided in Article 11), including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes, except as provided in Article 10.1.1.”.

109. Considering the above, the Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete must be disqualified, in accordance with Article 9.1 and 10.1 of the ADRHA, of all his individual results at the Event and during the period of ineligibility, with all consequences, as well as the resulting

(operative part of 2 June 2022)

consequences to teams as provided under article 11, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prize money.