CAS OG 16/23 Ihab Abdelrahman vs Egyptian NADO
Related case:
CAS 2017_A_5016 Ihab Abdelrahman vs WADA & EGY-NADO
December 18, 2017
Mr. Ihab Abdelrahman is an Egyptian Athlete qualified to compete in the javeling throw event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.
On 20 July 2016 the Egyptian Anti-Doping Organization (EGY-NADO) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A sample tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete requested analysis of the B sample which was scheduled on 30 August 2016 due to the Barcelona laboratory being closed during the summer holidays.
Because of the provisional suspension and the pending analysis of his B sample Athlete appealed his suspension with the CAS Ad Hoc Division in Rio.
The Athlete requested the CAS Panel for suspension of the ineligibility period; lift of the provisional suspension until the analysis results of the B Sample were available; and to allow him to compete at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games. EGY-NADO submitted that it was bound by the provisions of the World Anti-Doping Code and requested the Panel to reject the appeal.
The Panel finds that the sole issue for this Panel is to determine whether the Athlete has established a legal basis for the lifting of the provisional suspension. In the Panel’s view, he has not. In assessing the remedy sought by the Athlete, the Panel must consider factors including the Athlete’s reasonable chance of success on appeal following the testing of the B sample, irreparable harm and the balance of interests.
The Panel also finds that the substantial delay between the date of B-sample testing and the communication of the results, while unfortunate for the Athlete, is not unusual in view of the case load of the various laboratories and the complexity of the analysis. Even though it is preferable that the time between the taking of the sample and its analysis be a short one, the Panel also notes that the Athlete was able to compete during that time period. The Panel does not ignore that the specific time line in this case (notification of the AAF shortly before the Rio Olympic Games) made it difficult for the Athlete to defend his case. However, this aspect in relation to the competition schedule and the delay in the analysis of the sample, in and of itself, is not a sufficient reason to stay or suspend the mandatory provisional suspension.
Therefore the CAS Ad Hoc Division Panel concludes that the Athlete has not met the requirements to lift the provisional suspension and decides on 16 August 2016 to dismiss the appeal.
