When can athletes obtain a valid retroactive TUE? A review of the Samir Nasri caseRustam Sethna
As a general rule, an athlete having committed an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) under the World Anti-Doping Code, 2015 (Code) is liable to face sanctions. However, one way through which sanctions may be avoided is if the athlete was granted a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE).
Generally, an athlete must apply to his national or international federation (as applicable) for a TUE, before consuming a ‘Prohibited Substance’ or ‘Prohibited Method’.
However, as an exception to the general rule, an athlete may be granted a TUE retroactively (i.e. after consumption) if certain conditions, prescribed under WADA’s International Standard on Therapeutic Use Exemptions, 2016 (ISTUE), are met.
The case of Samir Nasri involves an application to Union Européennes de Football Association (UEFA) by the ex-Arsenal and Manchester City player for a retroactive TUE, to use an intravenous drip that was administered to him when he was feeling under the weather on holiday in December 2016. He was sanctioned for a period of 6 months of ineligibility.
Given the limited jurisprudence on retroactive TUEs, this article seeks to highlight important takeaways for athletes and considers whether an inexperienced athlete in the same position would attract the same level of sanction. Specifically, it looks at:
Background facts to the case
TUEs in a nutshell: Why Nasri’s application for a TUE failed
Arguments before CAS
Analysis (including mitigating and aggravating factors)
...to continue reading register here for free
LawInSport is an independent publisher used by sports lawyers, sports business executives and administrators, athletes and support personnel, academics and students to stay informed of the latest legal issues and developments from the world of sport. It is our mission to improve the accountability, transparency and standard of the administration and governance of sport and the understanding of the law.
Thank you for considering becoming a member of LawInSport, supporting independent media and the promotion well researched, reference and accessible legal information that contributes to greater transparency and accountability in the sport and legal sectors.
This work was written for and first published on LawInSport.com (unless otherwise stated) and the copyright is owned by LawInSport Ltd. Permission to make digital or hard copies of this work (or part, or abstracts, of it) for personal use provided copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage, and provided that all copies bear this notice and full citation on the first page (which should include the URL, company name (LawInSport), article title, author name, date of the publication and date of use) of any copies made. Copyright for components of this work owned by parties other than LawInSport must be honoured.
- Tags: Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) | Football | Prohibited Substance | Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUE) | UEFA TUE Committee | Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) | WADA Code | WADA’s International Standard on Therapeutic Use Exemptions | World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)
- Why are athletes held to a higher standard than medical professionals in anti-doping? Contrasting the Gil Roberts case and Team Sky scandal
- Possible ways the Therapeutic Use Exemptions system can be improved to prevent abuse
About the Author
Rustam is an Indian qualified lawyer and candidate for a Master’s degree in International Sports Law at Instituo Superior de Derecho y Economía (ISDE), Madrid. Previously, Rustam has gained 3 years of post-qualification experience as an Associate with AZB & Partners, one of India’s leading full-service law firms.