CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11665 — Romário Ricardo Da Silva v. Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee

"Da Silva" · CAS upheld a 12-month ban on a Brazilian footballer for Clomiphene presence, rejecting No Fault and sample-numbering challenges.

What happened in Da Silva

Romário Ricardo Da Silva, a Brazilian professional footballer playing for Neom Sports Club in Saudi Arabia, tested positive for Clomiphene (a prohibited anti-estrogenic Specified Substance, category S4.2) following an in-competition urine test on 21 October 2024. The Saudi Anti-Doping Hearing Panel (SADHP) imposed a 12-month period of ineligibility commencing 6 March 2025, reducing the standard two-year sanction on grounds of No Significant Fault or Negligence. The Player appealed to CAS, arguing: (1) the SAADC failed to prove the ADRV because a discrepancy in sample identification numbers (6545773 vs. 6545337) undermined chain of custody; (2) he bore No Fault or Negligence because his fertility specialist prescribed Clomiphene without disclosing its prohibited status; and (3) a retroactive TUE should be granted. CAS dismissed the appeal. The Panel found the numbering discrepancy was a typographical error confirmed by the Laboratory Director, that no sample numbered 6545337 ever existed at the lab, and that the B-sample opening procedure was properly verified by the Player's own representative. On fault, the Panel held the Player failed to meet the No Fault standard because he did not alert his doctor to WADA obligations, did not cross-check the medication label against the Prohibited List, and could not delegate anti-doping responsibility to a specialist with no anti-doping expertise. The retroactive TUE request was declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust internal remedies. The 12-month ban was upheld as proportionate.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11665

On 21 October 2024, the Player provided an in-competition urine sample (reference A6545773) to SAADC. The WADA-accredited Laboratoire Suisse d'Analyse du Dopage reported an AAF for Clomiphene on 14 November 2024. The B-Sample confirmed the finding on 21 January 2025. On 6 March 2025, the SADHP held a hearing and on 1 July 2025 issued the Appealed Decision, imposing a 12-month period of ineligibility (reduced from the standard two years under Articles 10.6 and 10.6.1.1 of the ADR) commencing 6 March 2025. The decision was notified to the Player on 23 July 2025. On 8 August 2025, the Player filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code, also requesting provisional measures. A hearing was held via videoconference on 27 November 2025. The operative part of the CAS Award was notified on 13 January 2026 and the full award issued on 6 July 2026.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11665

• A typographical error in a laboratory letter referencing a non-existent sample number (6545337 instead of 6545773) does not constitute a departure from the ISL where the Laboratory Documentation Package, DCF, and B-sample opening procedure all consistently reference the correct number and the Player's own representative verified the identification at the B-sample opening.
• An athlete does not establish No Fault or Negligence under Article 10.5 of the ADR where he consulted a fertility specialist who lacked anti-doping expertise, failed to explicitly alert that specialist to WADA's Prohibited List, and failed to cross-check the prescribed medication's label against the Prohibited List.
• A request for a retroactive TUE is inadmissible before CAS where the athlete has not first applied to the competent body (FIFA, as the relevant International Federation) and exhausted the procedure under Article 6 of the ISTUE and Article 4.4.6 of the ADR.
• Where both parties agree the sanction should not exceed 12 months, the Panel is bound by the principle of ne ultra petita and must assess the appropriate sanction within the light degree of fault category (0–12 months) under the framework of CAS 2017/A/5301 & 5302.
• A 12-month period of ineligibility for a Specified Substance under Article 10.6.1.1 of the ADR complies with the principles of proportionality and human rights, as those principles are built into the WADA Code and the ADR.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel applied a two-stage analysis. First, on the ADRV, it invoked the Article 3.2.2 ADR presumption that WADA-accredited laboratories conduct analyses in accordance with the ISL, placing the burden on the Player to rebut it by a balance of probability. The Panel summoned the Laboratory Director as a Panel witness, found her testimony credible, and concluded the discrepancy was a typographical error: no sample numbered 6545337 ever existed at the lab, the Documentation Package consistently used 6545773, and the Player's own representative signed off on the correct number at the B-sample opening. The Panel also noted that concentration estimates for non-threshold substances are not required by Article 5.3.8.4 of the ISL and have no bearing on the qualitative AAF. Second, on fault, the Panel applied the Cilic principles (CAS 2013/A/3327 & 3335) as adapted by CAS 2017/A/5301 & 5302, distinguishing objective and subjective fault elements. It rejected No Fault because the Player did not properly instruct his doctor about anti-doping obligations, did not cross-check the label, and could not rely on a specialist with no anti-doping expertise. The Panel accepted emotional stress from two miscarriages but found no evidence it impaired the Player's ability to perform basic anti-doping checks, noting he continued playing professionally throughout. The majority placed fault at the upper end of the light category, confirming 12 months.

Why Da Silva matters in CAS jurisprudence

The award reinforces that a typographical error in a supplementary laboratory letter does not invalidate an AAF where the core Documentation Package and B-sample opening procedure are consistent and verified by the athlete's own representative. It also confirms that consulting a medical specialist without anti-doping expertise, and without explicitly alerting that specialist to the Prohibited List or cross-checking the medication label, cannot satisfy the No Fault or Negligence standard. The case applies the post-2021 two-category Cilic fault framework and affirms that proportionality is 'built into' the WADA Code.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2022/ADD/46 CAS 2006/A/1133 CAS 2013/A/3327 & 3335 CAS 2017/A/5015 & 5110 CAS 2017/A/5301 & 5302 CAS 2007/A/1290

Frequently asked questions about Da Silva

Why did Da Silva's sample numbering argument fail at CAS?

The Panel found that the discrepancy — sample number 6545337 appearing in the Laboratory's letter of 27 January 2025 instead of the correct 6545773 — was a typographical error. The Laboratory Director testified that no sample numbered 6545337 ever existed at the lab, and the Player's own representative, Prof. L.C. Cameron, had verified the correct number 6545773 at the B-sample opening on 21 January 2025 and signed the documentation confirming it. Because the concentration estimate for a non-threshold substance under Article 5.3.8.4 of the ISL is not part of the mandatory analysis procedure, the error in that letter had no impact on the validity of the AAF.

Why was Da Silva denied No Fault or Negligence even though his doctor prescribed the Clomiphene?

Under Article 10.5 of the ADR, No Fault requires that the athlete could not reasonably have known or suspected, even with utmost caution, that a prohibited substance entered his system. The Panel found that the Player did not explicitly alert Dr Edilberto to WADA's Prohibited List or his anti-doping obligations, did not cross-check the medication label against the Prohibited List, and could not delegate anti-doping responsibility to a fertility specialist who testified he had no anti-doping expertise and would never advise on such matters. The Comment to Article 10.5 expressly states that administration of a prohibited substance by a personal physician without disclosure to the athlete does not eliminate fault.

Why was Da Silva's retroactive TUE request declared inadmissible by CAS?

The Panel held that it lacked the mandate to decide on a retroactive TUE application because the Player had not first applied to FIFA, the competent International Federation for International-Level Athletes under Article 4.4.3 of the WADA Code and Article 6 of the ISTUE. Under Article R47 of the CAS Code, an appellant must exhaust available internal remedies before appealing to CAS. Since the Player had not submitted a TUE application to FIFA, whose decision could then be appealed to CAS under Article 4.4.6 of the ADR, the request was inadmissible.

How did CAS determine that 12 months was the right sanction for Da Silva?

Both parties agreed the sanction should not exceed 12 months, binding the Panel by the ne ultra petita principle to assess fault within the light degree of fault category (0–12 months) under the framework established in CAS 2017/A/5301 & 5302. The majority placed the Player at the upper end of that category because he was an experienced international athlete who failed to check the medication label, conduct a basic internet search, consult an anti-doping expert, or properly instruct his fertility doctor — despite knowing the doctor had no anti-doping expertise. The Panel accepted emotional stress from two miscarriages but found no evidence it impaired his ability to perform basic anti-doping checks, particularly as he continued playing professionally throughout the same period.

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.