CAS 2008/A/1588 FIFA v/ Malta Football Association & Claude Mattocks
CAS 2008/A/1629 WADA v/ Malta Football Association & Claude Mattocks
CAS 2008/A/1588 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Malta Football Association (MFA) & C. and CAS 2008/A/1629 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. MFA & C.
- Football
- Doping (norandrosterone)
- Scope of application of FIFA anti-doping regulations and of national anti-doping regulations
- Application of FIFA anti-doping regulations by reference?
- Mitigating circumstances
- Limitation of reference to CAS jurisprudence by the content of the applicable regulations
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. According to CAS jurisprudence, by not exercising the required caution when he purchased and ingested the nutritional supplements which he argues to have caused the positive test, a player commits a gross negligence which does not justify that the period of suspension be reduced.
4. The fact that a case is governed by the national association antidoping rules and not by the FIFA Regulations does not prevent a CAS panel from applying similar principles as to the question of the existence or not of mitigating circumstances. However WADA and FIFA should not deduct from this that this would systematically lead in other cases to the application of CAS jurisprudence or even of the provisions of the WADC or the FIFA antidoping regulations on the issue of reduction of the period of suspension. Any reference to CAS jurisprudence is limited in each case by the content of the applicable regulations. CAS jurisprudence is thus not applicable if it conflicts with regulations which are validly applicable.
In January 2008 the Malta Football Association (MFA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Claude Mattocksh after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).
The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance. Yet, he acknowledged the use of supplements provided by pharmacies en health shops. Consequently the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board decided on 21 May 2008 to impose a sanction of 4 months 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 Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel concludes that the Athlete had acted negligently with his supplements.
Further the Panel deems that the MFA was wrong in reducting the period of ineligibility from 1 year to 4 months. There were no particular circumstances which could justify the imposition of a reduced sanction or 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 against the decision dated May 21, 2008 of the MFA Control and Disciplinary Board are partly upheld.
2.) The decision issued by the MFA Appeals Board is set aside.
3.) The Player, C., is declared ineligible from the 19 February 2008 until 19 June 2008 and for an additional period of eight months starting on the date of notification of the present award to the parties.
4.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
5.) (…).
