In January 2024, a rugby player from the Anglet Olympique Rugby Club tested positive for cannabis following a Nationale 2 match. He was subsequently handed a two-year suspension, a decision he refused to accept and challenged through the courts in the hope of returning to play sooner.
The French Council of State upheld the two-year suspension imposed by the AFLD, barring the player from all competition until 29 June 2027. The case highlights the strictness of France’s anti-doping framework, as well as its contradictions, since THC is only prohibited in competition when the urinary concentration exceeds 180 ng/mL.
A positive test with serious consequences
The player, born in 1995, was subjected to an anti-doping test following a match between his side and Union Cognac Saint-Jean-d’Angely. A urine test that would ultimately cost him two seasons on the pitch.
The analysis revealed the presence of carboxy-THC, the primary metabolite of cannabis, at a concentration of 194 nanograms per millilitre, above the 180 ng/mL threshold set by the World Anti-Doping Agency.
A margin of just 14 ng/mL. Yet that was sufficient to trigger the full disciplinary procedure. The player was formally notified of the decision and immediately suspended from all competition for two years, through to 29 June 2027.
An appeal rejected by the Council of State
Unwilling to accept the ruling, the player took his case to the Council of State in August 2025, arguing that a 14 ng/mL margin could not justify a two-year ban.
He admitted to having used cannabis at a social gathering, claiming he had only taken a couple of puffs from a joint being passed around.
The judges were not persuaded. In their view, the concentration level detected was consistent with regular or at least recent use, rather than an isolated puff at a party.
The court also identified inconsistencies in the player’s account. He initially stated he had consumed cannabis on 20 January, before changing his version to the 21st, which happened to be the day he played a match.
Cannabis in sport
Cannabis is classified as a prohibited substance in sport, in the same category as cocaine, MDMA and other controlled drugs.
According to WADA, cannabis, like other prohibited substances:
- has the potential to enhance athletic performance,
- poses a risk to the health of the athlete,
- goes against the spirit of sport.
For those who challenge this position, the contradiction is fairly obvious. Cannabis is widely considered to reduce rather than enhance physical performance, notably because of its effects on alertness and reaction time. The same argument could be made about alcohol, which is entirely permitted. It is not unusual to see players from any sport celebrating the end of a match with a drink in hand, which arguably runs counter to those same three principles.
The THC detection window: a headache for athletes
THC can remain detectable for several days or even weeks. The difficulty is that WADA operates a dual-detection system, distinguishing between consumption “in competition” and “out of competition”, which makes testing, analysis and sanctioning particularly complex.
In this respect, WADA has gradually relaxed its thresholds over time. In 2013, the permitted limit stood at just 15 ng/mL of THC. Today it is considerably higher, though still not high enough to have cleared the rugby player at the centre of this case.
What about CBD? Cannabidiol is not a prohibited substance. It is authorised and can be used freely. That said, athletes are advised to opt for broad-spectrum CBD products in order to significantly reduce the risk of unintentional THC exposure.
In short: what this case tells us
The rules in sport are clear. An athlete may not consume any substance appearing on the prohibited list. In this instance, the rugby player failed to comply with WADA’s regulations, and the Council of State ruled accordingly.
From a legal standpoint, the decision is final. From an ethical standpoint, the question of whether cannabis genuinely qualifies as a performance-enhancing substance remains very much open. It is a debate each reader is free to reach their own conclusion on.