The Court of Arbitration for Sport Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) has ruled on recent cases involving two athletes who violated anti-doping rules. The decisions concern Sajjad Ghanim Sehen, a judoka from Iraq, and Cynthia Temitayo Ogunsemilore, a boxer from Nigeria. In both instances, CAS ADD imposed disqualifications that reflect the ongoing commitment of major sports bodies to uphold clean competition and deter performance-enhancing drug use across disciplines. These rulings are part of a broader, multi-jurisdictional effort to ensure fair play on the world stage and maintain trust in international sport across the Americas and beyond [Source: CAS ADD case notes].
Shortly after the start of the Olympic cycle in 2024, testing protocols identified banned substances in athletes from multiple sports. In Sehen’s case, a doping test conducted on July 23 revealed the presence of a prohibited steroid, triggering further disciplinary processes under the sport’s anti-doping framework. Ogunsemilore’s case followed a few days later, on July 27, with positive findings for furosemide, a diuretic often scrutinized for masking other substances. On July 28, CAS ADD formally disqualified both competitors, underscoring the federation’s zero-tolerance stance on prohibited substances and the adherence of national delegations to the established anti-doping rules [Source: CAS ADD decisions].
The Olympic Games of 2024 opened on July 26, with events extending through August 11. The opening ceremony that year took place along the Seine River, marking a ceremonial start for a competition that brings together thousands of athletes from around the world. A notable talking point for the event was the stance of Russia, whose athletes participated as neutrals rather than under their country’s flag. This neutral participation followed a broader context of international sports governance and sanctions that had shaped the Olympic program in the lead-up to Paris 2024. The neutrals’ status reflected ongoing debates about eligibility, neutrality, and the ethical considerations surrounding competitive participation in a context of political conflict [Source: Olympic Committee briefing].
Looking back at the surrounding governance landscape, the International Olympic Committee made a significant decision regarding Russian and Belarusian athletes in February 2022, in response to the start of the conflict commonly referred to as the SVO. As the 2024 Games approached, the IOC established a framework that allowed these athletes to compete only if they met specific conditions and earned qualification through approved channels. This approach was designed to balance the interests of athletes who maintain their personal ambitions while addressing concerns about broader geopolitical pressures and competitive integrity. The outcome was a nuanced compromise that differed from prior Olympic participation patterns and required careful monitoring by national committees and international federations alike [Source: IOC governance summary].
In contrast to the ongoing debates around neutral participation, there was also criticism directed at Russia’s exclusion from the 2024 Olympic program in some African sports communities. Proponents of broader inclusion argued that withholding participation could limit exposure to high-level competition for athletes across the continent, potentially affecting development pathways and regional performance. Critics noted that sport can be a bridge for diplomacy and development, and some observers believed that more inclusive policies would better reflect the diverse realities of athletes training and competing across continents. The conversation highlighted how decisions at the intersection of sport, politics, and policy resonate far beyond the field of play [Source: regional sports commentary].