World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. National Anti-Doping Agency of India (NADA), Radhika Radhika

At a glance

Parties

World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. National Anti-Doping Agency of India (NADA India) and Radhika Radhika

Case no.

CAS 2024/A/10872

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal arbitration under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (2023 edition)

Treaty

Indian National Anti-Doping Rules 2021 (Article 13), World Anti-Doping Code

Tribunal

Heiner Kahlert (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Wrestling; anti-doping (clenbuterol)

Outcome

Appeal upheld (30 April 2025). NADA India's decision not to bring the case forward as an Adverse Analytical Finding was set aside, and the matter was referred back to NADA India for further investigation under WADA's Stakeholder Notice on meat contamination.

The dispute

Radhika Radhika, an Indian wrestler, gave an in-competition urine sample on 1 October 2022. The sample contained clenbuterol at an estimated 0.01 ng/mL, below the 5 ng/mL Minimum Reporting Level in WADA Technical Letter TL23, so it was reported as an Atypical Finding. That finding required a mandatory investigation into possible meat contamination. NADA India took a follow-up sample, which was negative, and interviewed the athlete about 19 months later. It then decided not to bring the case forward as an Adverse Analytical Finding. WADA appealed, arguing that NADA India had not completed the investigative steps in WADA's Stakeholder Notice on potential meat contamination cases; as an alternative, it asked for a finding of an anti-doping rule violation and four years' ineligibility. NADA India argued that the Stakeholder Notice gave it flexibility to design its own investigation, that its investigation had been diligent, and that the case fell in a "grey zone" where doubt should benefit the athlete; the athlete made no submissions.

Key holdings

1. CAS has jurisdiction. The decision is appealable to CAS either under Article 13.2.1 of the ADR (International-Level Athlete) or under Article 13.1.3 (WADA's direct appeal), so the athlete's level did not need to be decided. WADA's appeal, filed 21 days after it received elements of the case file on 23 August 2024, was in time. ¶¶ 46–53
2. TL23 is treated as a Technical Document under Article 2.1.4 of the ADR. Technical Letters are a special form of Technical Documents, with no hierarchy between them, and both are integral and binding parts of the International Standard for Laboratories. ¶¶ 57–61
3. The Stakeholder Notice binds NADA India at least by virtue of TL23. Footnote 1 of TL23 refers to the Stakeholder Notice as "detailing the mandatory investigative process" and so incorporates it by reference. ¶ 64
4. All nine investigative steps in Section B of the Stakeholder Notice are mandatory. The Notice says "shall", TL23 calls the investigative process mandatory, and harmonization is a core purpose of the anti-doping system. Paragraph 10, which says the list is not exhaustive, only allows additional steps; it does not make the listed steps optional. ¶¶ 66–71
5. NADA India did not complete the steps. It did not review the athlete's steroid Athlete Biological Passport (Step 3). It asked only about travel in October 2022, not her whereabouts before the sample (Steps 4–5), and not about her diet in the 72 hours before collection (Steps 5–6). It therefore could not carry out Steps 7–9. ¶¶ 72–76
6. The decision is set aside and, under Article R57 of the CAS Code, referred back to NADA India rather than decided by CAS. The athlete must not be prejudiced by the shortcomings of the investigation, and CAS is not the place to carry out steps that should precede any assertion of a violation. The operative part dates the appealed decision 14 May 2024, while the body of the award gives 15 May 2024. The costs paragraphs of the operative part are not published. ¶¶ 77–78; operative part

Procedural history

1. 1 October 2022In-competition doping control; the First Sample is collected.
2. 1 November 2022The National Dope Testing Laboratory of India reports an Atypical Finding for clenbuterol.
3. 23 December 2022A Second Sample is collected; it is reported negative on 5 January 2023.
4. 6 May 2024NADA India interviews the athlete by video conference.
5. 15 May 2024NADA India decides not to move the Atypical Finding forward as an Adverse Analytical Finding (dated 14 May 2024 in the operative part of the award).
6. 13 September 2024WADA files its Statement of Appeal with CAS.
7. 5 December 2024Panel constituted: Heiner Kahlert as Sole Arbitrator.
8. 30 December 2024The Sole Arbitrator decides to rule on the written submissions, without a hearing.
9. 30 April 2025Award: appeal upheld; the decision is set aside and the matter is referred back to NADA India.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Heiner Kahlert Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• doping
• clenbuterol
• wrestling
• meat contamination
• Atypical Finding
• Adverse Analytical Finding
• Technical Letter TL23
• Stakeholder Notice
• Technical Documents
• International Standard for Laboratories
• International Standard for Results Management
• results management
• duty to investigate
• referral back
• Article R57 CAS Code
• WADA appeal
• NADA India

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