CAS 2017/A/5142 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Fédération Algérienne de Football (FAF) & Walid Abdelli
Football
Doping (tampering with doping control)
Anti-doping rule violation by dilution of an anti-doping test-related urine sample
It is straightforward and obvious that doping control procedures are reliant on the integrity of bodily samples provided by one athlete being tested. It is equally straightforward and obvious that (a) a deliberate introduction of any foreign substance to a urine sample is likely to undermine the effectiveness of doping control tests conducted on a sample and that (b) a deliberate introduction of any foreign substance is therefore prohibited in order to protect the integrity and effectiveness of a doping control process. In such context, an athlete who deliberately diluted his urine sample with water must have known that by doing so, he was committing an anti-doping violation.
On 6 February 2017 the Disciplinary Commission of the Algerian Football Federation (FAF) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the football player Walid Abdelli for tampering his sample. Here the Cologne Lab reported that the Athlete’s sample was diluted with water while the Athlete denied any involvement in the dilution of his sample.
Hereafter in May 2017 FIFA appealed the Decision of the FAF Disciplinary Commission with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). FIFA requested the Panel to set aside the FAF Decision of 6 February 2017 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
FIFA contended that the Athlete clearly committed the anti-doping rule violation and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.
The FAF accepted that there had been a violation of the Rules and it could not definitively explain how the Athlete’s sample had come to be diluted with water. However the FAF contested the suggestion that the violation was intentional as the Athlete had consistently denied manipulating the sample.
The Athlete did not file any written submissions in reponse to FIFA’s appeal.
The Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete’s sample was diluted with water and that there is no evidence that anyone other than the Athlete was responsible for that dilution.
The Panel does not accept that a professional football sportsperson in the position of the Athlete could have held an honest belief that deliberately diluting a tiny quantity of urine with a large quantity of water during an anti-doping test would not entail a violation of anti-doping rules. Whatever the Athlete’s motivation for diluting the Sample, the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete must have known that by doing so he was committing an anti-doping violation.
The Panel is also concerned that the Doping Control Officer who oversaw the collection of the Athlete’s sample did not comply with the Rules to “ensure an unobstructed view of the Sample leaving the Athlete’s body”. While the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the failure to ensure an unobstructed view of the sample leaving the Athlete’s body does not in any way call into question the finding that the Athlete committed an anti-doping violation, the Panel is concerned that the Athlete was apparently able to dilute a urine sample in the presence of the Doping Control Officer without the doping control officer realising this had occurred.
The Panel holds that the procedures set out in the Rules are intended (amongst other things) to minimise the scope for interference and tampering during the sample collection process. In the Panel’s view, it is clear that proper adherence to the procedures set out in the Rules have led to the immediate detection of the Athlete’s anti-doping violation before he had left the doping control room, or would have deterred the Athlete from embarking on that course in the first place.
Therefore The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 October 2017 that:
1.) The appeal filed by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association on 17 May 2017 is upheld.
2.) The decision of the Commission de Discipline Ligue de Football Professionnel dated 19 April 2017 that Mr Walid Abdelli is subject to a two-year period of ineligibility (with one year suspended) is set aside.
3.) Mr Walid Abdelli is sanctioned with a four year-period of ineligibility starting from 30 January 2017.
4.) (…).
5.) (…).
6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
