CAS 2008/A/1575 FIFA v/ Malta Football Association & Gilbert Martin
CAS 2008/A/1627 WADA v/ Malta Football Association & Gilbert Martin
CAS 2008/A/1575 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Malta Football Association (MFA) & M. and CAS 2008/A/1627 World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) v. MFA & M.
- Football
- Doping (cocaine)
- Scope of application of FIFA anti-doping regulations and of national anti-doping regulations
- Application of FIFA anti-doping regulations by reference?
Sanction
1. In line with CAS jurisprudence, the system put in place under the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC) shows that FIFA has exclusive competences at international level whereas national federations have exclusive competences at national level. Therefore, the FDC is not directly applicable when it comes to sanctions imposed against players on national matches and competitions. In order to ensure the harmonization of doping sanctions at national level FIFA cannot claim the direct applicability of the FDC antidoping regulations but must use its disciplinary prerogatives provided under article 152 FDC in order to have national antidoping regulations amended accordingly. Once the national antidoping regulations have been harmonized, it is then FIFA’s and WADA’s duty to ensure that those national regulations are correctly applied by the national judicial bodies, using their right of appeal if necessary.
2. Although the FDC antidoping regulations can apply at national level per reference through national civil law or through the Statutes and antidoping regulations of the relevant national association, as a general rule the FDC antidoping regulations don’t prevail on national antidoping regulations. If the decision appealed against and the parties’ submissions deal with the sanction of a player at national level, the national association antidoping regulations should be applied independently and without any reference to the FDC antidoping regulations which are therefore not applicable.
3. Pursuant to the applicable national association antidoping rules the presence of metabolite of cocaine and cocaine in a player’s bodily sample constitutes an anti-doping rule violation or a doping offence which should be sanctioned by a twelve months suspension in case of a first doping offence. The national regulations being applicable, there is no particular circumstance which could justify the extension of the period of suspension.
In January 2008 the Malta Football Association (MFA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Gilbert Martin after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaïne. Consequently the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board decided on 25 March 2008 to impose a sanction of 1 year on the Athlete.
Hereafter in June 2008 FIFA and in August 2008 WADA appealed the MFA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). They requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 2 years.
The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He acknowledged that he recreationally had use Cocaine at a new year's eve party.
The Panel established that the MFA had imposed a sanction of 1 year on the Athlete for his anti-doping rule violation. In view of the MFA Doping Charter the Panel deems that there are no particular circumstances which could justify the imposition of an extended sanction.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 9 February 2009:
1.) The FIFA’s and World Anti-Doping Agency’s appeals are fully dismissed and the decision dated March 25, 2008 of the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board is upheld.
2.) The Player, M., is declared ineligible from 19 February 2008 until 18 February 2009.
3.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
4.) (…).
