Arbitrage TAS 2005/A/958 R. c. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), sentence du 29 juin 2006
- Football
- Doping (Cocaine)
- Competence of CAS
- Applicable law
- Valid evidence
- Minimum level of detection required from laboratories
- Proportionality of the sanction
On 7 July 2005 the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) Control and Disciplinary Body decided to suspend the minor Dutch football player after his A and B samples tested positive for Cocaine in a low concentration. The Athlete appealed and before the UEFA Appeals Body the Athlete introduced his hair test which showed no presence of cocaine.
The UEFA Appeals Body considered the Athlete’s hair test invalid and based on extenuating circumstances it decided on 30 August 2005 to impose a reduced sanction of 8 months on the Athlete.
Hereafter in September 2005 the Athlete appealed the UEFA Appeals Body decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete argued that the concentration of Cocaine found in his samples was too low to be scientifically verifiable while another football player of the opposing team also had the same test results. The Athlete raised the hypothesis that his positive test was the result of contamination throught inadvertent skin contact.
At the request of the CAS Panel the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) responded in this matter. Here WADA deemed the hypothesis of a contamination by simple accidental cutaneous contact for a urinary concentration of benzoylecgonine of 10 ng/ml not to be credible.
Based on the evidence in this case the Panel finds that the Athlete failed to demonstrate grounds regarding the validity of the Paris Lab test results and the concentrations found.
The Panel also rejects the Athlete’s hair test because it was not analysed in an accredited laboratory, considered less relevant than an urine test and inadmissible under the Rules.
Futher the Athlete could not show circumstances where possible passive contamination occurred. Considering the mitigating circumstances in this case the Panel holds that there are grounds to reduce the imposed sanction by 2 months.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 June 2006:
1.) The Athlete’s appeal is admissible and partially upheld;
2.) To reform the UEFA Appeals body decision of 30 August 2005 and to reduce the Athlete’s period of ineligibility to 6 months;
3.) The period of ineligibility of 5 months an 22 days already served by the Athlete shall be credited against the imposed period of ineligibility.
