CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11609 — Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland (NADA) v. Sascha Stendebach

"Stendebach" · CAS increased a powerlifter's sample-refusal ban from one year to four years, finding at least dolus eventualis.

What happened in Stendebach

Sascha Stendebach, a German powerlifter in the NADA Registered Testing Pool (RTP), refused a doping control on 23 March 2024. He had emailed his federation (BVDK) on 21 March 2024 requesting deregistration, but the formal withdrawal process — requiring a signed form countersigned by the BVDK and submitted to NADA — was not completed until 25–26 March 2024. When controllers arrived at his registered address on 23 March 2024, Stendebach acknowledged being home but refused the sample, stating he had already deregistered. He was warned that refusal could result in a four-year ban, yet still declined and signed the refusal form. The German Sports Arbitration Court (DIS) imposed only a one-year ban, finding no intent. NADA appealed to CAS. The sole arbitrator conducted a de novo review and found that Stendebach remained RTP-bound on 23 March 2024, was properly notified, had no compelling reason to refuse, and had acted with at least dolus eventualis. No exceptions under Art. 10.3.1 BVDK ADC applied. CAS imposed the mandatory four-year ban, crediting time served since 15 May 2025. The case matters because it reinforces the 'test now, protest later' principle and the strict formality of RTP withdrawal procedures.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11609

On 23 March 2024 Stendebach refused an out-of-competition doping control. NADA issued a sanction notice on 18 July 2024. Stendebach requested a disciplinary hearing before the German Sports Arbitration Court (DIS). NADA filed its claim on 30 August 2024, seeking a four-year ban. The DIS issued its award on 15 May 2025, imposing a one-year ban starting that day, annulling competition results from 23 March 2024 to the start of the ban, and ordering Stendebach to pay costs. NADA received the DIS award on 2 July 2025 and filed its CAS appeal on 23 July 2025, within the 21-day deadline under Art. R49 CAS Code. The parties attempted settlement (suspended proceedings 29 July – 28 October 2025) but failed. After two rounds of written submissions and no hearing, the sole arbitrator decided on the papers.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11609

• Stendebach remained subject to RTP testing obligations on 23 March 2024 because the formal NADA withdrawal procedure — requiring a signed form countersigned by the BVDK and received by NADA — had not been completed; informal communications to the federation did not suffice.
• A refusal of sample collection constitutes a violation of Art. 2.3 BVDK ADC regardless of whether the athlete intended to dope; the relevant intent is the conscious decision to prevent a lawful control.
• Under the 'test now, protest later' principle, an athlete who disputes the legality of a control must nonetheless submit to the sample collection and challenge the control through proper channels afterwards.
• Stendebach failed to prove absence of intent under Art. 10.3.1(a) BVDK ADC; at minimum he acted with dolus eventualis, triggering the standard four-year sanction.
• Neither extraordinary circumstances under Art. 10.3.1(b) BVDK ADC, nor protected-person or recreational-athlete status, nor any other reduction ground was established, making the four-year mandatory period applicable.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The sole arbitrator exercised full de novo review under Art. R57 CAS Code, unrestricted by the DIS panel's findings. He found the RTP membership unambiguous: the BVDK contract ran to 30 June 2024 and the RTP assignment covered 21 November 2023 to 22 October 2024; only the completed bilateral withdrawal form, received by NADA on 25 March 2024, could end that status. The BVDK's email of 22 March 2024 explicitly told Stendebach that further steps were required, so he could not reasonably believe he had already exited the pool. On intent, the arbitrator rejected the DIS's error-of-law reasoning: the relevant intent for Art. 2.3 is not doping intent but the conscious refusal of a lawful control. Stendebach was warned by controllers that his obligation persisted and that refusal risked a four-year ban; his post-refusal email hoping for 'no consequences' showed awareness of potential wrongdoing. His juvenile medical history was noted but not shown to have impaired his understanding on 23 March 2024. Past clean tests were irrelevant because the rule sanctions refusal as an independent offence to protect the integrity of unannounced testing. The arbitrator also rejected the argument that a subsequent offer to be tested the same day could cure the refusal.

Why Stendebach matters in CAS jurisprudence

Stendebach reinforces that RTP withdrawal is strictly formal — no informal communication or subjective belief of retirement ends testing obligations — and applies the 'test now, protest later' doctrine to find dolus eventualis where an athlete refuses after being warned of consequences. The award also confirms CAS's full de novo power to increase a first-instance sanction to the mandatory four-year period when no statutory reduction ground is proven, consistent with the Swiss Federal Tribunal's jurisprudence on CAS cognition in doping cases.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2021/A/7983 & 8059 BGer 4A_102/2016 BGer 4A_17/2007

Frequently asked questions about Stendebach

Why did CAS increase Stendebach's ban from one year to four years?

The German Sports Arbitration Court (DIS) had found no intent and imposed one year, but CAS conducted a full de novo review under Art. R57 CAS Code. The sole arbitrator found that Stendebach acted with at least dolus eventualis: he was warned by controllers on 23 March 2024 that his testing obligation persisted and that refusal risked a four-year ban, yet still refused. Because no exception under Art. 10.3.1 BVDK ADC was established, the mandatory four-year sanction applied.

Was Stendebach still in the testing pool when he refused the control on 23 March 2024?

Yes. His BVDK squad contract ran until 30 June 2024 and his RTP assignment covered 21 November 2023 to 22 October 2024. The formal withdrawal required a signed form countersigned by the BVDK and received by NADA; that process was only completed on 25 March 2024, and NADA removed him from the RTP on 26 March 2024. His email to the BVDK on 21 March 2024 and his retirement from competition did not automatically end his RTP membership.

Does the 'test now, protest later' principle apply in the Stendebach case?

Yes. The sole arbitrator explicitly applied this principle, citing Art. 2.3 BVDK ADC e contrario. He held that an athlete who disputes the legality of a control must nonetheless submit to the sample collection and challenge the control through the proper procedural channels afterwards. Stendebach's belief that the control was unlawful did not entitle him to refuse it on the spot.

How was the start date of Stendebach's four-year ban calculated?

Under Art. 10.13 BVDK ADC the ban runs from the date of the disciplinary decision. No provisional suspension had been imposed before the DIS award of 15 May 2025. CAS therefore set the four-year ban to begin on 15 May 2025 — the date the DIS imposed the one-year ban — and credited all time served under that ban against the four-year period, in accordance with Art. 10.13.2.1 BVDK ADC.

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.