CAS 2006/A/1149 & 2007/A/1211 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Federación Mexicana de Fútbol (FMF) & José Salvador Carmona Alvarez
Football
Doping (stanozolol)
Stay of the CAS proceedings
Coexistence of national and international regimes in doping cases
Notification of the Adverse Analytical Finding to the athlete
Analysis by two different laboratories
Lifetime suspension
1. A letter requesting a stay of the CAS proceedings pending the decision of another jurisdictional body does not constitute an implicit acceptance that this body’s decision will be authoritative and definitive. If the intention is to confer such an effect to the decision of that body, then the case before the CAS should be withdrawn. The very notion of suspension implies the possibility of resumption.
2. The coexistence of national and international authority to deal with doping cases is a familiar feature, and it is well established that the national regime does not neutralise the international regime. National associations have vested disciplinary authority in international federations precisely in order to eliminate unfair competition, and in particular to remove the temptation to assist national competitors by over-indulgence.
3. An athlete cannot invoke more or less identifiable rules for giving formal notice that are peculiar to his home country in order to escape the charge of a doping offence. This would be utterly inimical to the establishment and maintenance of a uniform international regime in the fight against doping.
4. An athlete is entitled to the assurance that his specimens are analysed in an accredited laboratory in accordance with a rigorous protocol. However, there is no such thing as entitlement to “the most favourable laboratory”, which means that the fact that a second (non accredited) laboratory has analysed the same sample and has come to a negative result that is different from the (positive) result of the first (accredited) laboratory does not give rise to a doubt that should be resolved in favour of the athlete by an acquittal. What matters is only whether the adverse analytical finding was made by a properly accredited laboratory properly following protocol.
5. Professional athletes are no different than others whose work is regulated – much as physicians or public servants or accountants – who face disqualification if they violate the rules to which they are held. The anti-doping rules are designed and intended to protect athletes who compete fairly, and to punish those who do not. The latter must be prepared to face the consequences when they transgress the rules, even if these consequences are as serious as a lifetime suspension that deprives them of the possibility to pursue their preferred profession.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 May 2007 that:
1.) The World Anti-Doping Agency’s appeals against the decision dated 20 July 2006 of the FMF’s Disciplinary Commission and against the decision of the Comisión de Apelación y Arbitrage del Deporte dated 4 December 2006 are upheld.
2.) The decision dated 20 July 2006 of the FMF’s Disciplinary Commission is set aside.
3.) The decision of the Comisión de Apelación y Arbitrage del Deporte dated 4 December 2006 has no effect on the system of sanctions established under the FIFA Statutes and Regulations.
4.) The Player, Mr José Salvador Carmona Alvarez, is declared ineligible with immediate and lifetime effect.
(…).
