CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2022/A/9173 — Ashutosh Mehta v. National Anti-Doping Agency India (NADA)

"Mehta v. NADA" · CAS declined jurisdiction over Indian footballer's doping appeal because he was not an International-Level Athlete at the time of the violation.

What happened in Mehta v. NADA

Ashutosh Mehta, an Indian professional footballer playing for ATK Mohun Bagan, tested positive for Morphine (1.30 μg/mL, at the decision limit) following an in-competition urine test on 8 February 2022 during the Hero India Super League in Goa. The WADA-accredited NDTL confirmed the AAF; the B-Sample confirmed the A-Sample result. The Indian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ADDP) imposed a two-year period of ineligibility on 15 September 2022, finding the violation unintentional under Article 10.2.2 of the NADA ADR. Mehta appealed to CAS, arguing he was an International-Level Athlete because he had played in FIFA friendly matches and AFC Cup matches, and sought reduction of his sanction to 3–6 months on grounds of No Significant Fault and substantial assistance. NADA challenged CAS jurisdiction, arguing Mehta was not an International-Level Athlete. The Sole Arbitrator held that the relevant time for assessing International-Level Athlete status is when the ADRV occurred (8 February 2022), and that at that date Mehta had not competed in any International Competition for more than ten months and had only participated in approximately five international matches sporadically. He therefore did not 'participate regularly' in International Competitions as required by the FIFA ADR definition. CAS declined jurisdiction, leaving the ADDP's two-year ban in place. The case matters because it clarifies that sporadic past international appearances do not confer permanent International-Level Athlete status for jurisdictional purposes.

Procedural history of CAS 2022/A/9173

On 8 February 2022, Mehta provided a urine sample at an in-competition doping control during the Hero India Super League in Goa. The NDTL reported an AAF for Morphine at 1.30 μg/mL. NADA notified Mehta of the AAF on 25 March 2022. The B-Sample confirmed the A-Sample on 15 June 2022. Mehta accepted a voluntary provisional suspension on 24 June 2022. The ADDP heard the matter on 7 September 2022 and on 15 September 2022 imposed a two-year period of ineligibility under Article 10.2.2 of the NADA ADR, with disqualification of results from 8 February 2022 and credit for provisional suspension served. Mehta filed his Statement of Appeal with CAS on 6 October 2022 under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code. NADA filed a Preliminary Reply on 5 November 2022 objecting solely to CAS jurisdiction. NADA did not file a substantive Answer within the time limit. A remote hearing was held on 6 July 2023. The Sole Arbitrator was appointed on 31 March 2023.

Key holdings in CAS 2022/A/9173

• The relevant time for determining whether an athlete qualifies as an International-Level Athlete is when the anti-doping rule violation occurred, not when the Statement of Appeal was filed.
• An athlete must participate regularly in International Competitions to qualify as an International-Level Athlete under the FIFA ADR definition; sporadic participation is insufficient.
• Approximately five international matches in March and August 2021, followed by more than five months without any international competition prior to sample collection on 8 February 2022, does not constitute regular participation in International Competitions.
• CAS has no jurisdiction over appeals by National-Level Athletes under Article 13.2.1 of the NADA ADR; such appeals must be directed to the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel under Article 13.2.2.
• The burden of establishing International-Level Athlete status on the balance of probability rests on the Athlete pursuant to Article 3.1 of the NADA ADR.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator began with the text of Article 13.2.1 of the NADA ADR, which grants CAS jurisdiction only in cases 'involving International-Level Athletes.' He then applied the FIFA ADR definition, which requires a player to be in a Registered Testing Pool or to 'participate regularly in International Competitions.' Since Mehta was undisputedly not in any Registered Testing Pool, the question turned on regular participation. The Arbitrator rejected NADA's argument that a formal designation by an international federation was required, finding no such requirement in the applicable rules. He identified the relevant time as the date of the ADRV (8 February 2022), relying on the present-tense wording of both the NADA ADR and FIFA ADR definitions and citing CAS 2018/A/5853 for the proposition that past participation at some point in a career cannot permanently confer international status. He acknowledged that not every brief interruption changes an athlete's status, requiring case-by-case analysis. Weighing the facts — approximately five international matches in March and August 2021, a gap of more than ten months before sample collection, and only 55 total minutes of international play after the violation — the Arbitrator concluded Mehta's appearances were sporadic, not regular. He therefore found no jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits.

Why Mehta v. NADA matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies the temporal and qualitative threshold for International-Level Athlete status in football anti-doping jurisdiction disputes. Relying on CAS 2018/A/5853, the Sole Arbitrator confirmed that status must be assessed at the moment the ADRV occurred and that 'regular' participation — not merely sporadic appearances — is required. The case establishes that approximately five international matches spread over two periods, with a gap exceeding ten months before the violation, falls short of the regularity required by the FIFA ADR definition, preventing CAS from assuming jurisdiction and directing the athlete to the national appeal body instead.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2018/A/5853 CAS 2022/A/9194 Mrs M R Poovamma v. National Anti-Doping Agency India (NADA)

Frequently asked questions about Mehta v. NADA

Why did CAS say it had no jurisdiction in the Mehta v. NADA case?

CAS held that jurisdiction under Article 13.2.1 of the NADA ADR requires the athlete to be an International-Level Athlete at the time the ADRV occurred. Because Mehta had not competed in any International Competition for more than ten months before his sample was collected on 8 February 2022, and had only played approximately five international matches sporadically in March and August 2021, the Sole Arbitrator found he did not 'participate regularly' in International Competitions as required by the FIFA ADR definition. Accordingly, CAS had no jurisdiction and the appeal was dismissed.

What is the correct appeal body for a National-Level Athlete in India under the NADA ADR?

Under Article 13.2.2 of the NADA ADR 2021, where Article 13.2.1 (which grants exclusive CAS jurisdiction for International-Level Athletes) does not apply, the decision may be appealed to the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel. In Mehta v. NADA, the Sole Arbitrator found that Mehta was a National-Level Athlete and therefore the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel, not CAS, was the competent appellate body.

At what point in time must an athlete be an International-Level Athlete for CAS to have jurisdiction in a doping case?

According to the Sole Arbitrator in Mehta v. NADA, the relevant time is when the anti-doping rule violation occurred, not when the Statement of Appeal was filed. This interpretation is based on the present-tense wording of the International-Level Athlete definitions in both the NADA ADR and the FIFA ADR, and is supported by CAS 2018/A/5853, which warned that treating any past international participation as permanently conferring international status would 'cast the net far too wide.'

Does playing in the AFC Cup or FIFA friendly matches automatically make a footballer an International-Level Athlete for anti-doping purposes?

Not automatically. In Mehta v. NADA, the Sole Arbitrator held that participation in AFC Cup matches and FIFA friendly matches constitutes participation in International Competitions, but the FIFA ADR requires that such participation be regular — meaning at repeated times with equal or similar intervals. Mehta's approximately five international matches in March and August 2021, followed by a gap of more than ten months and only 55 total minutes of international play after the violation, was found to be sporadic rather than regular, so he did not qualify as an International-Level Athlete.

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.