CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11542 — World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Romanian National Anti-Doping Agency (RNADA) & Matei Cosmin Gabriel

"Matei Cosmin Gabriel" · CAS partially upheld WADA's appeal, imposing a 9-month ban on Romanian footballer Matei Cosmin Gabriel for a contaminated supplement ADRV.

What happened in Matei Cosmin Gabriel

Romanian professional footballer Matei Cosmin Gabriel, registered with Sepsi OSK Sfântu Gheorghe, tested positive for 5-methylhexan-2-amine (a Specified Stimulant under S.6.B of the 2024 WADA Prohibited List) following an in-competition doping control on 4 February 2024. The source was identified as the pre-workout supplement Gorillalpha Ibiza Juice Remix, confirmed contaminated by laboratory analysis. The Anti-Doping Hearing Commission of Romania imposed a 6-month period of ineligibility. On appeal, the Board of Appeal attached to the Secretariat General of the Romanian Government reduced this to a reprimand with no period of ineligibility. WADA appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator found that the Athlete had taken most reasonable precautions — checking ingredients against the RNADA Prohibited List, conducting Google searches, and consulting the Team Doctor twice — but had failed to use a third-party certified supplement, constituting his sole but meaningful fault. Applying the CAS fault-categorisation framework, the Arbitrator placed the Athlete's fault in the 'light' category but slightly above average within that range, resulting in a 9-month period of ineligibility. The appeal was partially upheld, the Board of Appeal decision set aside, and results from 4 February 2024 disqualified. This case matters because it clarifies the weight of third-party supplement certification in No Significant Fault analyses.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11542

On 4 February 2024, the Athlete provided a urine sample following an in-competition doping control. The WADA-accredited Bucharest laboratory detected 5-methylhexan-2-amine. On 1 April 2024, RNADA charged the Athlete with an ADRV under Articles 2(2)(a) and 2(2)(b) of the ADR. On 1 August 2024, the Anti-Doping Hearing Commission of Romania sanctioned the Athlete with a 6-month period of ineligibility. The Athlete appealed to the Board of Appeal attached to the Secretariat General of the Romanian Government, which, in its decision no. 25/2024 rendered on 12 June 2025, annulled the 6-month ban and substituted a reprimand with no period of ineligibility under Article 94(1)(a) of the ADR and Article 10.6.1.1.1 of the WADC. WADA received the complete case file on 10 July 2025 and filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS on 31 July 2025, the last day of the applicable 21-day deadline under Article 113(2) of the ADR. WADA asked CAS to set aside the Board of Appeal decision and impose a 2-year ban, or alternatively 12–24 months.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11542

• An athlete who checks ingredients against the RNADA Prohibited List, conducts internet searches, and consults a team doctor twice, but fails to use a third-party certified supplement, commits fault that is 'light' but not absent, precluding a mere reprimand under Article 94(1)(b) of the ADR.
• The failure to list a supplement on the Doping Control Form does not, in the circumstances of this case, constitute evidence that the Athlete was not taking his anti-doping obligations seriously, where the omission was explained by exhaustion and reliance on the Team Doctor.
• WADA's right to appeal a Board of Appeal decision directly to CAS under Article 111(1) of the ADR is not conditioned on having challenged the first-instance decision, and its exercise does not constitute an abuse of rights.
• Fairness under Article 85(4) of the ADR requires limiting disqualification of results to the date of sample collection (4 February 2024) where the ADRV occurred more than two years prior, the Athlete was permitted to compete throughout, and no lasting performance-enhancing effect was alleged.
• Consistency of sanctions is a virtue but correctness is a higher one, so prior lenient awards in allegedly similar cases do not bind a panel to replicate an incorrect benchmark.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator began from the uncontested premise that the ADRV was not intentional and that the Prohibited Substance originated from the contaminated Gorillalpha Ibiza Juice Remix supplement. The standard period of ineligibility was therefore two years, reducible under Article 94(1)(b) of the ADR if the Athlete established No Significant Fault or Negligence. Applying the objective/subjective fault framework from CAS 2013/A/3327 & 3335 and CAS 2017/A/5301 & 5302, the Arbitrator found that the Athlete had taken four of the five precautions identified in that jurisprudence — label review, cross-checking against the Prohibited List, internet search, and expert consultation — but had not ensured the product was reliably sourced through independent third-party certification. That omission was the Athlete's sole but real fault. The Arbitrator rejected WADA's argument that the product's marketing language constituted an obvious red flag, noting that many products use exaggerated marketing and that the supplement was not advertised as 'performance enhancing' in the specific sense used in CAS 2013/A/3327 & 3335. On subjective factors, the Arbitrator credited the Athlete's belief in the product's safety based on teammates' negative tests, but weighed heavily against him his 16 years of professional experience and awareness of third-party certification. Balancing these factors, the Arbitrator placed fault slightly above average within the 'light' range (0–12 months, standard 6 months), yielding a 9-month sanction.

Why Matei Cosmin Gabriel matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies that, in contaminated-supplement cases, an athlete who checks ingredients against the national prohibited list and consults a team doctor twice but omits third-party certification falls in the 'light' fault category rather than escaping sanction entirely. It also confirms that WADA may appeal directly to CAS from a Board of Appeal decision without having challenged the first-instance ruling, and that selective enforcement arguments based on other high-profile cases (Chinese swimmers, Sinner) will not succeed absent comparable factual circumstances.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2013/A/3327 & 3335 CAS 2017/A/5301 & 5302 CAS 2016/A/4643 CAS 2022/A/9286 CAS 2021/A/8449 CAS 2016/A/4716

Frequently asked questions about Matei Cosmin Gabriel

Why did Matei Cosmin Gabriel receive 9 months instead of the reprimand given by the Romanian Board of Appeal?

The CAS Sole Arbitrator found that while the Athlete checked the RNADA Prohibited List, conducted Google searches, and consulted his Team Doctor twice, he failed to use a third-party certified supplement — his sole but meaningful fault. Applying the CAS fault-categorisation framework from CAS 2017/A/5301 & 5302, the Arbitrator placed his fault slightly above average within the 'light' range (0–12 months), yielding a 9-month period of ineligibility rather than the reprimand imposed by the Board of Appeal.

Did WADA have the right to appeal the Romanian Board of Appeal decision directly to CAS without having challenged the first-instance 6-month ban?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator held that Article 111(1) of the ADR does not condition WADA's right of appeal on having challenged the first-instance decision. The Arbitrator also rejected the Athlete's abuse-of-rights argument, noting that requiring WADA to appeal every first-instance decision would be contrary to proper administration of resources and procedural efficiency.

Was the failure to list Gorillalpha Ibiza Juice Remix on the Doping Control Form treated as evidence of significant fault in the Matei Cosmin Gabriel case?

No. The Sole Arbitrator found that the omission could not be read as an indication that the Athlete was not taking his anti-doping obligations seriously. The Team Doctor's testimony established that the Athlete regularly double-checked products with the Team Doctor, and the omission was explained by post-match exhaustion and the Team Doctor's focus on prescribed medications when dictating the DCF.

How did the CAS panel handle the disqualification of results in the Matei Cosmin Gabriel case given the ADRV occurred over two years before the award?

Applying Article 85(4) of the ADR, the Sole Arbitrator limited disqualification to the results obtained on 4 February 2024 — the date of sample collection — on fairness grounds. The Arbitrator noted that the Athlete had been permitted to compete for over two years (except for a provisional suspension from 1 to 20 August 2024) and that no lasting performance-enhancing effect of 5-methylhexan-2-amine had been alleged or argued.

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.