CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11840 — World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) & David Bett

"Bett" · CAS increased Kenyan long-distance runner David Bett's ban from 20 months to 4 years after finding he failed to rebut the presumption of intentional doping.

What happened in Bett

David Bett, a Kenyan international-level long-distance runner, tested positive for 19-Norandrosterone (a metabolite of Nandrolone, a non-Specified Substance) at the San Blas Half Marathon in Puerto Rico on 3 March 2024. The Sports Disputes Tribunal of Kenya (SDT) found an ADRV but imposed only a 20-month ban, accepting the Athlete's explanation that Sustanon injections prescribed for ankle pain on 2 and 7 February 2024 caused the positive test and finding no intentional doping. WADA appealed to CAS seeking the standard 4-year sanction. The Sole Arbitrator, relying on expert testimony from Professor Martial Saugy, found the Sustanon explanation scientifically implausible: testosterone in Sustanon does not metabolise into 19-Norandrosterone in men, the excretion period is approximately 14 days while the sample was collected 25 days after the last injection, and the detected levels could only be explained by an exogenous source. Without proof of source, the Athlete could not rebut the presumption of intent. The 4-year ban was backdated to 14 May 2024 — the start of the SDT-imposed suspension — because the SDT's erroneous decision, not the Athlete's conduct, caused the procedural delay. The case illustrates how failure to establish source of a non-Specified Substance triggers the full 4-year sanction and how CAS may adjust start dates to avoid disproportionate consequences from first-instance errors.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11840

On 3 March 2024, Bett provided a urine sample at the San Blas Half Marathon. On 19 April 2024, the WADA-accredited SMRTL reported an AAF for 19-Norandrosterone. ADAK provisionally suspended the Athlete from 3 June 2024 and filed a charge document with the Sports Disputes Tribunal of Kenya (SDT) on 26 July 2024, seeking a 4-year ban. A hearing took place on 10 April 2025. On 15 May 2025, the SDT imposed a 20-month period of Ineligibility commencing 14 May 2024, finding the ADRV non-intentional based on the Sustanon prescription explanation. WADA was notified of the decision on 24 August 2025 and received the case file on 23 September 2025. WADA filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS on 14 October 2025, within the 21-day deadline under Article 13.6.1 of the ADAK ADR. A videoconference hearing was held on 9 March 2026 before Sole Arbitrator Annett Rombach.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11840

• An athlete who fails to establish the source of a non-Specified Substance on the balance of probabilities faces a significantly higher threshold to rebut the presumption of intentional doping under Article 10.2.1 of the ADAK ADR.
• The definition of 'intentional' under Article 10.2.3 of the ADAK ADR encompasses indirect intent — i.e., where an athlete knew there was a significant risk that his conduct might constitute an ADRV and manifestly disregarded that risk — and is not limited to deliberate cheating.
• Where the source explanation is scientifically implausible (here, that Sustanon injections produce 19-Norandrosterone in men), the athlete has not discharged the burden of proving source and cannot benefit from No Significant Fault or Negligence reductions under Articles 10.5 and 10.6.2 of the ADAK ADR.
• Pursuant to Article 10.13.1 of the ADAK ADR, where a first-instance panel's erroneous legal application — not the athlete's conduct — causes a delay resulting in a disproportionately extended effective ban, the period of Ineligibility may be backdated to the date of the first-instance suspension.
• All competitive results from the date of sample collection (3 March 2024) are disqualified under Article 10.10 of the ADAK ADR, with forfeiture of medals, points and prizes.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first assessed whether the Athlete established the source of the Prohibited Substance on the balance of probabilities. She accepted Professor Saugy's expert evidence — supported by three decades of anti-doping science experience and tested through cross-examination — over the written statements of the Athlete's treating physician and Dr Nyamu, neither of whom testified orally or provided scientific corroboration. Saugy demonstrated that testosterone in Sustanon does not metabolise into 19-Norandrosterone in men, that the excretion window of approximately 14 days was inconsistent with a sample collected 25 days after the last injection, and that the detected levels required an exogenous source. The Arbitrator further noted that even on Dr Nyamu's own account, testosterone levels return to normal after 21 days, yet the sample was taken 25 days post-injection. Having found source unproven, the Arbitrator applied footnote 58 to Article 10.2.1.1 of the WADA Code and CAS jurisprudence requiring the Athlete to walk through 'the narrowest of corridors' to prove non-intent without source. The Athlete offered no such rare facts. The Arbitrator then addressed the start date, finding it inequitable to impose a ban running to 30 November 2028 — potentially excluding the Athlete from the 2028 Olympics — when the 6.5-month extension beyond the correct 4-year term resulted solely from the SDT's erroneous decision.

Why Bett matters in CAS jurisprudence

Bett reinforces that failure to establish the source of a non-Specified Substance on the balance of probabilities makes it virtually impossible to rebut the presumption of intentional doping, triggering the mandatory 4-year ban. The award also provides a notable application of Article 10.13.1 ADAK ADR, holding that a first-instance panel's legal error — not the athlete's conduct — can justify backdating the Ineligibility period to prevent disproportionate consequences, including potential exclusion from the Olympic Games.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2017/A/5260 CAS 2021/O/8111 CAS 2016/A/4534 CAS 2016/A/4676 & 4919 CAS 2019/A/6313 CAS 2010/A/2268

Frequently asked questions about Bett

Why did CAS increase David Bett's ban from 20 months to 4 years?

The Sole Arbitrator found that Bett failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that Sustanon injections were the source of the 19-Norandrosterone detected in his sample. Expert Professor Martial Saugy demonstrated that testosterone in Sustanon does not metabolise into 19-Norandrosterone in men and that the excretion window of approximately 14 days was inconsistent with a sample collected 25 days after the last injection. Without proof of source, Bett could not rebut the presumption of intentional doping under Article 10.2.1 of the ADAK ADR, making the standard 4-year ban mandatory.

Does the Bett case mean an athlete must always prove the source of a prohibited substance to avoid a 4-year ban?

Not absolutely, but practically yes for non-Specified Substances. The Sole Arbitrator applied footnote 58 to Article 10.2.1.1 of the WADA Code, which states it is 'highly unlikely' an athlete will prove non-intent without establishing source. CAS jurisprudence cited in the award requires the athlete to walk through 'the narrowest of corridors,' and Bett presented no rare facts beyond the scientifically implausible Sustanon theory to satisfy that standard.

Why did the 4-year ban in Bett start on 14 May 2024 rather than the date of the CAS award?

The Sole Arbitrator applied Article 10.13.1 of the ADAK ADR, which allows backdating where delays in the hearing process are not attributable to the athlete. She found that the SDT's erroneous 20-month decision — not Bett's conduct — caused a 6.5-month extension of the effective ban beyond the correct 4-year term, potentially barring him from the 2028 Olympic Games. To avoid that disproportionate consequence, the ban was backdated to 14 May 2024, the first day of the SDT-imposed suspension.

What is 'indirect intent' in anti-doping and how did it apply in the Bett case?

Under Article 10.2.3 of the ADAK ADR, 'intentional' includes indirect intent: an athlete who knew there was a significant risk that his conduct might constitute an ADRV and manifestly disregarded that risk. The Sole Arbitrator criticised the SDT for ignoring this concept and focusing only on whether Bett intended to cheat. Because Bett could not prove the source of the Prohibited Substance, he could not demonstrate he lacked even indirect intent, and the full 4-year sanction applied.

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.