On 18 July 2010, A, a twelve year old kart driver, tested positive for the banned substance Nikethamide during a kart race in Germany.

On 11 October 2011, the medical commission of the anti-doping committee of the Fédération X issued a two-year competitive ban on A, lasting from 18 July 2010 to 18 July 2012. A was also disqualified from the kart race of 18 July 2010 and all results and prizes achieved after that were withdrawn.

A appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which reduced the competitive ban to 18 months. Subsequently, A challenged the CAS award before the Swiss Supreme Court.

Referring to its established case law, the Swiss Supreme Court reiterated that the petitioner must have a legitimate and current interest in having the award set aside as a prerequisite for the Supreme Court to consider the merits of the case.

In view of the fact that the competitive ban of 18 months had already expired on 18 January 2012, the Supreme Court concluded that A no longer had a legitimate and current interest in having the award set aside. Furthermore, the Supreme Court indicated that A could, however, have argued that his disqualification from the race provided him with the necessary legitimate and current interest in having the award aside. As A had failed to raise this argument or to submit that it would be in the public interest to address the issues raised in the case, the Supreme Court dismissed the case.

The challenge of doping-related bans is a recurring topic in sports arbitration and therefore also before the Supreme Court. The case clearly shows that a banned athlete can no longer challenge a competitive ban before the Swiss Supreme Court after the ban has been lifted or has ended. Therefore, in such cases counsel should focus on other reasons why the athlete has the required legitimate and current interest in having set the award aside (for example, because he was disqualified, or stripped of a title, prizes or results) or why it is in the public interest that the issues raised in the case be addressed by the Supreme Court.