Skip to main content
International Arbitration Forum

Heiki Nabi v. Estonian Center for Integrity in Sports

Case summary

At a glance

Parties
Heiki Nabi (Estonian Greco-Roman wrestler) v. Estonian Center for Integrity in Sports (ESTCIS)
Case no.
CAS 2021/A/8125
Forum and rules
Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeals procedure under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration; hearing in Lausanne
Treaty
Estonian Anti-Doping Rules (EADR), Article 13.2.1 (appeal to CAS)
Panel
Prof. Stefano Bastianon (President), Janie Soublière, Benoît Pasquier
Sector
Sport – wrestling; anti-doping
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (20 October 2022). The two-year period of ineligibility imposed by the ESTCIS Disciplinary Board is confirmed.
Amount
No monetary claims. The cost orders are redacted in the published award.

The dispute

Heiki Nabi is an Estonian Greco-Roman wrestler and a multiple Olympic and World Championship medallist. An out-of-competition test on 6 January 2021 found letrozole in his sample. Letrozole is an S4 aromatase inhibitor and a Specified Substance. The ESTCIS Disciplinary Board found that he had not established the source and imposed two years of ineligibility under Article 10.2.2 EADR. On appeal, Nabi said he did not have to prove the source to claim No Fault or Negligence or No Significant Fault or Negligence. He put forward four possible routes of contamination: French turkey, Lithuanian bovine liver, sweat or saliva from a sparring partner, and contaminated equipment at the Sparta gym. He also asked for a reduction on grounds of proportionality and for a cost-free procedure under Article R65 of the CAS Code. ESTCIS replied that the EADR definitions expressly require the athlete to establish how the substance entered his system, and that none of his scenarios was supported by evidence.

Key holdings

  1. Article R65 (the no-costs rule) does not apply. The appealed decision was issued by a national anti-doping body, not by an international federation or international sports body. ¶¶ 136–139
  2. The meat theories fail. The athlete did not prove the origin of the turkey, or that letrozole is used in poultry farming. There are no known or studied cases of letrozole contamination through meat, and nothing traced the liver to a supplier suspected of treating livestock. ¶¶ 148–158
  3. The sweat, saliva and gym-equipment theory is rejected as unlikely, for four reasons: there is no scientific evidence for it; letrozole would have to pass through two bodily systems and two skin barriers; no transmitting individual was identified; and no other athlete training at the Sparta gym tested positive. ¶¶ 163–165
  4. The Panel accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the finding came from inadvertent exposure, relying on the polygraph and on Prof. Kintz's hair analysis. Even so, none of the scenarios was more likely than not, so the source was not established. ¶¶ 167–168, 175–177
  5. Under the EADR definitions of No Fault or Negligence and No Significant Fault or Negligence, the athlete must establish the source of the substance. These definitions bind as integral parts of the rules (Article 24.4). The "narrowest corridor" case law applies only to proof of lack of intent for non-specified substances, which takes a four-year ban down to two years. ¶¶ 170–174, 187–189
  6. No reduction for proportionality. The fault-based reductions already embody that principle. The Panel's stated "uncomfortable feeling" about the sanction is not enough to depart from the rules. ¶¶ 191–194
  7. The appeal is dismissed and the decision of 27 June 2021 is confirmed. The athlete must serve the rest of the two-year ineligibility, although the Panel called him a credible witness who should not be branded a cheater. ¶¶ 195–199; operative part

Procedural history

  1. 6 January 2021Out-of-competition test in Tallinn. ESTCIS notified the adverse analytical finding for letrozole on 7 February 2021 and imposed a provisional suspension.
  2. 8 April 2021Analysis of the B sample confirmed letrozole.
  3. 18 May 2021The ESTCIS Disciplinary Board lifted the provisional suspension pending its hearing, which took place on 18 June 2021.
  4. 27 June 2021The ESTCIS Disciplinary Board imposed two years of ineligibility from 18 June 2021 and disqualified results from 6 January 2021. The reasoned decision followed on 1 July 2021.
  5. 9 July 2021The CAS Division President rejected the request for a stay of execution, having earlier refused to decide it ex parte. The reasoned order followed on 16 August 2021.
  6. 21 July 2021Statement of Appeal filed.
  7. 7 September 2021Panel constituted.
  8. 11 May 2022Hearing in Lausanne.
  9. 20 October 2022Award: appeal dismissed and first-instance decision confirmed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by
For the claimant
Paul Keres · Rafael Braegger · Aleksander Muru
For the respondent
Ingeri Luik-Tamme · Stephan Netzle
Experts
Douwe de Boer (claimant) · Pascal Kintz (claimant) · Mihkel Mardna (claimant) · Keith R. Ashcroft (claimant) · Detlef Thieme (respondent)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.

Case ID
CAS 2021/A/8125
Claimant
Heiki Nabi
Respondent
Estonian Center for Integrity in Sports
Documents

Procedure: Appeal
Sport: Wrestling
Matter: Doping
Outcome: Dismissed
Panel: Benoît Pasquier, Janie Soublière, Stefano Bastianon
Source: Court of Arbitration for Sport case database.