CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10766 — Sport Integrity Commission v. Inoke Turagalailai

"Turagalailai" · CAS imposed the mandatory two-year ban on a Fijian footballer for in-competition cannabis use, rejecting proportionality-based reduction.

What happened in Turagalailai

Inoke Turagalailai, a Fijian footballer competing for the Fijian Men's National Under-23 team at the Oceania Football Confederation Men's Olympic Qualifying Tournament in New Zealand, tested positive for Carboxy-THC (cannabis) on 9 September 2023. He admitted using cannabis on the morning of match day — i.e., in-competition — and accepted the ADRVs under Rules 2.1 and 2.2 of the Sports Anti-Doping Rules 2023 (SADR). Because his use was unrelated to sport performance, the prescribed sanction was two years under Rule 10.2.2 of the SADR. The Sports Tribunal of New Zealand, by majority, reduced this to eight months on proportionality grounds. The Sport Integrity Commission (formerly Drug Free Sport New Zealand) appealed to CAS. Sole Arbitrator Elizabeth Brimer KC conducted a de novo review and upheld the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's decision and imposing the mandatory two-year period of ineligibility. The award matters because it firmly rejects the notion that anti-doping tribunals possess a 'general discretion' to reduce WADC-prescribed sanctions on proportionality grounds, confirming that only in truly exceptional cases — where a sanction is 'evidently and grossly disproportionate' and violates fundamental justice — may a panel depart from the prescribed sanction. The commencement date was backdated to 14 December 2023 to account for substantial delay not attributable to the athlete.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10766

On 9 September 2023, the Appellant tested the Respondent in-competition at the OFC Men's Olympic Qualifying Tournament in New Zealand. The A Sample returned a positive result for Carboxy-THC at 444 ng/ml. The Respondent waived B Sample testing and accepted a provisional suspension ordered on 1 March 2024. On 15 March 2024, Drug Free Sport New Zealand (later succeeded by the Sport Integrity Commission) brought proceedings before the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand alleging breaches of Rules 2.1 and 2.2 of the SADR. The Respondent admitted the ADRVs. A hearing took place on 20 June 2024. By majority decision dated 3 July 2024 (ST01/24), the Tribunal found the prescribed two-year sanction unjust and disproportionate and imposed eight months' ineligibility, backdated to 14 December 2023. The Sport Integrity Commission filed a Statement of Appeal at CAS on 24 July 2024, seeking imposition of the prescribed two-year sanction under Rule 10.2.2 of the SADR.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10766

• Anti-doping tribunals do not possess a 'general discretion' to reduce WADC-prescribed sanctions on proportionality grounds; such a discretion would be inimical to the WADC's goals of consistency and certainty.
• A prescribed sanction may only be reduced on proportionality grounds in very rare and exceptional cases where the sanction is 'evidently and grossly disproportionate' to the proved rule violation and constitutes a violation of fundamental justice and fairness contrary to mandatory Swiss law.
• The two-year period of ineligibility under Rule 10.2.2 of the SADR for in-competition use of a substance of abuse unrelated to sport performance is proportionate, reflecting a rational policy distinction between in-competition and out-of-competition use based on health, safety, and spirit of sport considerations.
• Where there is substantial delay in the doping control process not attributable to the athlete, the period of ineligibility may be backdated as early as the date of sample collection under Rule 10.13.1 of the SADR.
• Any changes to the WADC sanction regime to address perceived disparities are a matter for the legislative body in the iterative WADC review process, not for adjudicative bodies applying the lex lata.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator conducted a de novo review and addressed two issues: the availability of proportionality as a basis for reducing the prescribed sanction, and the commencement date. On proportionality, she accepted that the principle is a general principle of law and that the WADC's drafters cannot be the final arbiters of proportionality. However, drawing on Puerta (CAS 2006/A/1025), Guerrero (CAS 2018/A/5546), and the CAS Advisory Opinion (CAS 2005/C/976 & 978), she held that departure from prescribed sanctions is reserved for cases where the sanction is 'evidently and grossly disproportionate' — a very rare and exceptional threshold. She rejected the Tribunal's characterisation of its power as a 'general discretion,' noting that even the Respondent's counsel disavowed that term. She found the differentiated sanction regime for in-competition versus out-of-competition substance of abuse use to be rationally justified by extensive WADA review materials, including health and safety evidence, the high decision limit of 180 ng/ml correlating with in-competition use, and spirit of sport considerations. She rejected the argument that the changes were unanticipated or disproportionate, noting the WADC review involved 211 stakeholders, 2,035 comments, and review of over 2,700 scientific articles. The Respondent's personal hardship, while acknowledged, did not reach the exceptional threshold. On backdating, she accepted the Tribunal's finding of substantial delay not attributable to the athlete and maintained the 14 December 2023 commencement date.

Why Turagalailai matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces the near-inviolability of WADC-prescribed sanctions, confirming that proportionality-based reduction is available only in truly exceptional cases of 'evident and gross' disproportionality. It also provides detailed reasoning for why the 2021 WADC's differentiated substance of abuse sanction regime — stricter for in-competition use — is rationally justified and proportionate, drawing on WADA's scientific review materials. The award explicitly rejects the concept of a 'general discretion' to adjust sanctions, aligning with Puerta and Guerrero.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2006/A/1025 Puerta v ITF CAS 2018/A/5546 Guerrero v FIFA CAS 2021/A/8125 Nabi v Estonian Centre for Integrity in Sports CAS 2023/A/9451 RUSADA v Valieva CAS 2010/A/2268 I v FIA CAS 2005/C/976 & 978 Advisory Opinion (WADC implementation into FIA Disciplinary Code)

Frequently asked questions about Turagalailai

Why did CAS overturn the 8-month ban and impose 2 years on Turagalailai?

The Sports Tribunal of New Zealand reduced the prescribed two-year sanction to eight months on proportionality grounds, claiming a 'general discretion' to adjust WADC sanctions. CAS Sole Arbitrator Elizabeth Brimer KC held that no such general discretion exists and that departure from prescribed sanctions is only permissible in very rare cases where the sanction is 'evidently and grossly disproportionate' and violates fundamental justice — a threshold not met here. The prescribed two-year sanction under Rule 10.2.2 of the SADR was therefore imposed.

Can a CAS panel reduce a WADC sanction on proportionality grounds in a cannabis in-competition case?

Only in truly exceptional circumstances where the sanction is 'evidently and grossly disproportionate' to the proved rule violation and constitutes a violation of fundamental justice and fairness contrary to mandatory Swiss law. In Turagalailai, the Sole Arbitrator found that the two-year sanction for in-competition cannabis use unrelated to sport performance did not meet that threshold, noting the WADC's differentiated regime was rationally justified by extensive scientific review and health and safety policy objectives.

What is the sanction for in-competition cannabis use under the 2021 WADC / SADR 2023?

Under Rule 10.2.4.2 of the SADR, if an athlete uses a substance of abuse in-competition and establishes the use was unrelated to sport performance, the use is not considered 'intentional' for Rule 10.2.1 purposes, meaning the four-year sanction does not apply. The applicable sanction is therefore two years under Rule 10.2.2. In Turagalailai, the athlete admitted using cannabis on the morning of competition with a sample concentration of 444 ng/ml, and the two-year sanction was imposed.

When was Turagalailai's ban backdated to and why?

The period of ineligibility was backdated to 14 December 2023 — the start of the Christmas shutdown period — rather than the date of sample collection (9 September 2023) as the Respondent had requested. The Sole Arbitrator agreed with the Tribunal that there was substantial delay not attributable to the athlete (the process took approximately five months from sample collection to notification), but found that backdating to 14 December 2023 struck the right balance between recognising that delay and exercising restraint so as not to undermine the anti-doping regime, also giving credit for the period of ineligibility already served between 14 December 2023 and 14 August 2024.

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.