CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2021/A/7789 — Kacper Falon v. Polish Anti-Doping Agency & World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)

"Falon" · CAS dismissed a national-level Polish footballer's anti-doping appeal for lack of jurisdiction, confirming athletes cannot appeal second-instance NADO decisions to CAS.

What happened in Falon

Kacper Falon, a professional footballer playing in the third tier of Polish football for Miejski Klub Pitkarski Pogon Siedlce, received a 1000ml intravenous infusion on 16 October 2019 alongside six teammates, constituting a prohibited method under anti-doping rules. The POLADA Disciplinary Panel of the First Instance imposed a six-month ineligibility sanction, accepting his admissions and crediting substantial assistance and inexperience. WADA appealed, and the Second Instance Panel increased the sanction to four years on 20 January 2021. Falon appealed to CAS on 2 March 2021. WADA and POLADA challenged CAS jurisdiction, arguing Falon was a national-level athlete with no right to appeal a second-instance decision to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator bifurcated proceedings and ruled solely on jurisdiction. He held that since the adoption of the WADA Code in 2003, national-level athletes have had no right to appeal second-instance decisions to CAS — only certain international Anti-Doping Organisations (WADA, IOC, IPC, and the relevant IF) hold that right. The POLADA ADR, properly interpreted consistently with the WADA Code per Article 24.3, confirmed this. Falon's arguments based on translation discrepancies, a POLADA announcement, and alleged implied acceptance of jurisdiction were all rejected. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. This award reinforces the structural asymmetry in WADA's appeal architecture for national-level athletes.

Procedural history of CAS 2021/A/7789

On 16 October 2019, Falon received a prohibited intravenous infusion. On 5 December 2019, a temporary disqualification was imposed. On 11 December 2019, the POLADA Disciplinary Panel of the First Instance imposed a six-month ineligibility sanction, reducing from a potential four-year ban on grounds of substantial assistance, youth, and inexperience. On 20 May 2020, WADA appealed to the POLADA Disciplinary Panel of the Second Instance, arguing the reductions were ungrounded given the intentional nature of the violation. On 20 January 2021, the Second Instance Panel imposed a four-year period of ineligibility; the full decision with reasons was delivered to Falon on 9 February 2021. Falon filed his Statement of Appeal before CAS on 2 March 2021. On 9 July 2021, WADA challenged jurisdiction and sought bifurcation. On 12 July 2021, POLADA supported WADA's position. On 30 December 2021, the Sole Arbitrator bifurcated proceedings. On 2 February 2022, the Sole Arbitrator decided to rule on jurisdiction on the basis of written submissions alone. The jurisdictional award was issued on 20 February 2025.

Key holdings in CAS 2021/A/7789

• CAS has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed by a national-level athlete against a second-instance NADO disciplinary decision, as only certain international Anti-Doping Organisations hold that right under Article 13.2.3 of the WADA Code.
• Article 13.2.3.2 para. 1 of the POLADA ADR provides only a list of persons entitled to appeal first-instance decisions to the Second Instance Panel; it does not confer on national-level athletes a right to appeal second-instance decisions to CAS.
• Article 24.3 of the POLADA ADR requires that its provisions be interpreted consistently with the WADA Code, so any alleged translation discrepancy in the Polish text cannot expand an athlete's appeal rights beyond what the WADA Code permits.
• A POLADA announcement or a reference in POLADA submissions to a pending CAS appeal does not constitute a waiver of the jurisdictional objection, and the Sole Arbitrator is required to review jurisdiction on his own initiative regardless.
• Policy arguments that the absence of a CAS appeal right for national-level athletes is unfair are matters for rule-makers, not for the Sole Arbitrator, who is constrained to examining the relevant provisions conferring or not conferring jurisdiction.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator began with Article R47 of the CAS Code, which requires that the statutes or regulations of the relevant body provide for CAS appeal. He traced the WADA Code's architecture from 2003 onwards, noting that national-level athletes have consistently been limited to a national-level reviewing body, with CAS appeal reserved for WADA, the IOC, the IPC, and the relevant IF. He analysed Article 13.2.3.2 of the POLADA ADR in detail, finding that paragraph 1 lists persons entitled to appeal first-instance decisions to the Second Instance Panel, while paragraph 2 separately grants certain international organisations the additional right to appeal second-instance decisions to CAS — a contrario excluding athletes. He rejected Falon's argument based on alleged Polish-language translation discrepancies, invoking Article 24.3 of the POLADA ADR, which mandates interpretation consistent with the WADA Code. He dismissed the POLADA announcement of 22 December 2020 as directed at excluding the Polish Olympic Committee's arbitration tribunal, not at conferring universal CAS access. He rejected the implied-waiver argument, noting WADA retained its right to raise jurisdiction and the Sole Arbitrator was independently obliged to examine it. He also declined to act on fairness policy arguments, holding those were for rule-makers. Accepting Falon's interpretation would violate a fundamental, mandatory, and longstanding principle of the WADA Code.

Why Falon matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award confirms and reinforces the structural principle, in place since the 2003 WADA Code, that national-level athletes have no right to appeal second-instance NADO decisions to CAS. Only WADA, the IOC, the IPC, and the relevant IF hold that right. The award also establishes that domestic translation discrepancies, NADO public announcements, and implied conduct cannot override the mandatory and literal requirements of the WADA Code, particularly where the NADO's own rules require WADA Code-consistent interpretation.

Frequently asked questions about Falon

Can a national-level athlete appeal a POLADA second-instance doping decision to CAS?

No. Under Article 13.2.3 of the WADA Code and Article 13.2.3.2 of the POLADA ADR, only certain international Anti-Doping Organisations — WADA, the IOC, the IPC, and the relevant IF — have the right to appeal a second-instance NADO decision to CAS. In Falon, the Sole Arbitrator dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on this basis.

What was Kacper Falon's sanction and why did he appeal to CAS?

Falon received a four-year period of ineligibility from the POLADA Disciplinary Panel of the Second Instance on 20 January 2021, increased from the six-month sanction imposed at first instance. He appealed to CAS on 2 March 2021 seeking reinstatement of the six-month sanction or a reduction based on no significant fault or substantial assistance. CAS dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction without reaching the merits.

Does a POLADA announcement or a NADO's reference to a pending CAS appeal amount to acceptance of CAS jurisdiction in the Falon case?

No. The Sole Arbitrator in Falon held that POLADA's 22 December 2020 announcement was directed at excluding the Polish Olympic Committee's arbitration tribunal from doping cases, not at conferring CAS jurisdiction on all athletes. He also held that POLADA's reference to Falon's CAS appeal in a separate proceeding did not constitute an express or implied waiver of the jurisdictional objection, noting that the Sole Arbitrator is independently required to examine jurisdiction.

Can a Polish-language translation discrepancy in the POLADA ADR give a national-level athlete broader CAS appeal rights than the WADA Code allows?

No. Article 24.3 of the POLADA ADR expressly requires that its provisions be interpreted consistently with the WADA Code. The Sole Arbitrator in Falon held that even if an inartful Polish translation existed, it could not override the clear English text of Article 13 of the WADA Code, which restricts CAS appeal rights in national-level cases to certain international Anti-Doping Organisations only.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.