CAS 2007_A_1446 WADA vs Qatar Football Association & Hamad Rakea Humood Alanezi

21 Aug 2008

CAS 2007/A/1446 WABA v/ Qatar Football Association & Hamad Rakea Humood Alanezi

The Player signed an employment contract with the Qatari football club "Al-Arabi Sports Club" for the period from March 2007 to May 2007. In consideration for his work with the Al-Arabi Sports Club*s first team, the Player received a total amount of 30,000 USD, another 30,000 USD being paid to a third party, namely the Al Refa Club from Bahrein,
On 1 April 2007, on the occasion of an in-competition test performed on an urine sample provided by the Player during a football game between Al-Arabi Sports Club and Al-Ahli Sports Club, the Player tested positive to 19-norandrosterone at a concentration
higher than the 2 ng/ml threshold stated in the World Anti-Doping Agency Technical Document,
In a letter datcd 3 June 2007, the QFA notified the Player of the presence of a prohibited substance in his bodily specimen and explained that this was in violation "of the Qatar Football Association Regulations and the Regulations Doping Control for FIFA competition In and Out of Competitions [sic]. As consequence, you [the Player] could be seriously sanctioned by the competent judicial bodies in accordance with the abovementioned
Regulations" In the same letter, the QFA informed the Player of his right to request the analysis of the B-sample> as provided by the QFA and FIFA anti-doping rules. The Player did not request the analysis of the B-sample.
On 6 June 2007, the Player was questioned by the QFA General Secretary, Mr. Said Al-Mohannadi, the QFA Medical Officer, Dr. Saadalla Mohamed Seemer and the QFA Legal Advisor, Mr. Ettore Mazzilli. During his examination, the Player declared that he
had never in his life taken any substance to improve his physical ability or his sports performance and that he had not taken any medicine during the three days preceding the game in which he tested positive. However, he took medicine under medical
prescription for about 45 days, from 15 January 2007 until the end of February 2007.

CAS 2007_A_1445 WADA vs Qatar Football Association & Ali Jumah A.A. Al-Mohadanni

21 Aug 2008

CAS 2007/A/1445 WADA v/ Qatar Football Association & Ali Jumah A.A. Al-Mohadanni

In 2007 the Player was playing for the Qatari football club named "Qatar Sports Club". On 7 April 2007, on the occasion of an in-competition test performed on a urine sample provided by the Player during a football game between AI-Khor Sports Club and Qatar Sports Club, the Player tested positive to 19-norandrosterone at a concentration higherthan the 2ng/ml threshold stated in the World Anti-Doping Agency Technical Document, namely more thian 20 ng/ml.
On 3 June 2007, the QFA notified the Player of the presence of a prohibited substance in his bodily specimen and of has right to request the analysis of the B-sample, as provided by the QFA anti-doping rules. The Player did not request the analysis of the B-sample,
In the following days, the Player appeared spontaneously several times before the Head of the QFA Doping Control Committee. During those hearings, the Player declared that he had taken some nutritional supplements called Yohimbine, just before the game and
that he had bought all of them in a local supermarket in Doha. He claimed that he had believed that those were natural products containing only vitamin and mineral salts particularly useful for a football player during that part of the season when the climate in
Qatar is usually very hot and with a really high percentage of humidity. In order to prove bis statement, the Player provided the Head of the QFA Doping Control Committee with a box of the pills that he claimed to have used, emphasizing that those pills can be easily purchased in several local supermarkets, even without medical prescription.

CAS 2007_A_1370 FIFA vs STJD & CBF & Ricardo Lucas Dodô

11 Sep 2008

CAS 2007/A/1370 FIFA v. Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD) & Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) & Mr Ricardo Lucas Dodô

CAS 2007/A/1376 WADA v. Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD) & Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) & Mr Ricardo Lucas Dodô

Related case:
Swiss Federal Court 4A_460_2008 Ricardo Lucas Dodô vs FIFA & WADA
January 9, 2008

Football
Doping (Fenproporex)
CAS Jurisdiction
Applicable law
No fault or negligence
No significant fault or negligence
Burden of proof
Duty of care of the athlete
Commencement of the suspension period

1. The “stand-alone test” is the decisive test to reveal whether a given sports justice body pertains in some way to the structure of a given sports organization or not. If it appears that, would the sports organization not exist, the sports justice body would not exist and would not perform any function, then the sports justice body has no autonomous legal personality and may not be considered as a Respondent on its own in a CAS appeal arbitration concerning one of its rulings. Consequently, the procedural position of the sports justice body before the CAS must be encompassed within that of the sports organization.

2. If a national legislation itself expressly states that official sports practice in the country is governed by national and international rules, then international sports rules are directly applicable in this country. Accordingly, any athlete registered with a national federation is directly bound by the international rules accepted by that federation, including any provision therein giving jurisdiction to the CAS.

3. The right of appeal to CAS against national decisions – granted to FIFA and WADA – confirms that national football associations have expressed the clear wish to pursue uniform interpretation and application of anti-doping rules and sanctions vis-à-vis athletes of international status throughout the football world. Such uniform interpretation and application would be imperilled or impeded if the CAS – absent any mandatory rule or public policy principle imposing such legal course – had to accord precedence to domestic anti-doping rules over a FIFA disciplinary system contractually accepted, on a basis of reciprocity, by all national football associations and their affiliated clubs and registered individuals.

4. In order to establish that he bears no fault or negligence, the athlete must prove (1) how the prohibited substance came to be present in his/her body and, thus, in his/her urine samples, and (2) that he/she did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost caution, that he/she had used or been administered the prohibited substance.

5. In order to establish that he/she bears no significant fault or negligence, in addition to the proof of how the prohibited substance came to be present in his/her body, the athlete must prove that his/her fault or negligence, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances and taking into account the requirement of utmost caution, was not significant in relationship to the anti-doping rule violation.

6. The athlete must establish the facts that he/she alleges to have occurred by a “balance of probability”. According to CAS jurisprudence, the balance of probability standard means that the indicted athlete bears the burden of persuading the judging body that the occurrence of the circumstances on which he/she relies is more probable than their non-occurrence or more probable than other possible explanations of the doping offence.

7. The WADA Code provides that the athlete is personally responsible for the conduct of people around him/her from whom he/she receives food, drinks, supplements or medications, and cannot simply say that he/she trusts them and follows their instructions.

8. When delays in the judging process are not or only partially attributable to the athlete, it is fair to apply ex officio the principle set forth by Article 10.8 of the WADA Code and, thus, to start the period of suspension at an earlier date than the day of notification of the award.


In June 2007 the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ricardo Lucas Dodô after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Fenproporex.
In July 2007 several nutritional supplements regularly used by the Dodô's team were sent to the University of Sao Paulo Laboratory for Toxicological Analyses to be tested in order to ascertain the possible presence of Fenproporex and hereafter the substance was found in some caffeine capsules.

Considering te contamination reports about the supplements the Brazilian Sports Disciplinary Commission accepted the Players statement and decided on 24 July 2007 to impose a 120 day period of ineligibility on the Player.

The Player appealded this decision and on 2 August 2007 the
Brazilian High Sports Court for Football (STJD) decided to set aside the Discplinary Commission’s decision and to acquit the Player with termination of his provisional suspension. The STJD accepted the Player’s argument that he had been an innocent victim of contamination and that he had not been negligent.

Hereafter in September 2007 FIFA and WADA appealed the STJD decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel is not willing to share the STJD’s conclusion that the explanation offered by the Player is acceptable. In the Panel’s view, the evidence submitted by the Player as to both the ingestion of a caffeine capsule prior to the match and the contamination of that caffeine capsule is unsatisfactory. The Panel finds that, on the balance of probability, the Player has failed to establish how the prohibited substance entered his system and the Panel finds that the Player’s degree of “fault or negligence”, viewed in the totality of the circumstances, is clearly “significant” in relation to the anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 11 September 2008:

1.) The CAS has jurisdiction ratione materiae and ratione personae to entertain the appeals of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in respect of the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) and Mr Ricardo Lucas Dodô, while it has no jurisdiction ratione personae in respect of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD).
2.) The appeals of FIFA and WADA against the decision dated 2 August 2007 of the STJD are upheld.
3.) The decision dated 2 August 2007 of the STJD is set aside.
4.) Mr Ricardo Lucas Dodô is suspended from 6 December 2007 to 7 November 2009.
(…)

CAS 2007_A_1364 WADA vs FA Wales & Ceri James

12 Dec 2007

CAS 2007/A/1364 WADA v/FAW and James

On March 24, 2007, Mr. James was selected for an in-competition urine test on the occasion of the Welsh Premier Football League match between Haverfordwest County and WTFC. The urine sample was collected in conformity with the applicable regulations by UK Sport, the National Anti-Doping Organization for the United Kingdom, and FIFA Doping Control Regulations. The sample was sent to the Drug Control Centre of King’s College (London), a
laboratory accredited by WADA.
With a letter of 13 April 2007, UK Sport notified the FAW that the Drug Control Centre had found the “A” urine sample collected from Mr. James (sample No. A1071966) positive for Benzoylecgonine, which is classified as a stimulant on the WADA Prohibited List.
With a letter of 17 April 2007, the FAW notified Mr. James that his urine sample was found positive for Benzoylecgonine, and that he had the right to have the “B” sample analysed. The FAW also informed Mr. James that it would convene a Review Panel to decide whether a doping offence has been committed and whether an interim suspension should be put in place until the matter was concluded.
With a letter of 19 April 2007, Mr. James notified Mr. Paul Evans, the Head of Discipline and Welfare at the FAW, that he “[could] not argue with the result of the sample.” Mr. James followed up with a letter on 20 April 2007, stating that he “will not be needing the B Sample.”
At the FAW Review Panel meeting on 20 April 2007, the panel concluded that there was prima facie evidence that a doping offence has been committed. Furthermore, the panel decided that
an interim suspension was appropriate. With a letter of 24 April 2007, Mr. James was notified of the Review Panel’s decision and told that he must not participate in any football activity until all disciplinary proceedings had been completed.
On 22 May 2007, an Appeals Panel of the FAW found that the presence of a prohibited substance in Mr. James’s body was clear and unchallenged, but took note of the good character evidence submitted by Mr. James and the fact that this was Mr. James’s first offence. The Appeals Panel noted that the FAW Regulation 11.2.1 specifies a minimum suspension of 6 months and a fine for a first offence.
As a result, the Appeals Panel decided to suspend Mr. James from all participation in football for 6 months and 10 days, from 21 April 2007 until 31 October 2007. Mr. James was ordered to pay a fine of £250.00, suspended for two years from 24 March 2007 and payable only if Mr. James breached the FAW Doping Control Regulations during this period. In addition, Mr. James was ordered to pay the cost of the hearing in the amount of £300.00.

On 27 August 2007, WADA filed a Statement of Appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against the decision of the FAW Appeals Panel Decision.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport pronounces:
1. The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Association on 27 August 2007 is upheld, and the Appealed Decision issued by the Appeals Panel of the FAW on 22 May 2007 is varied to impose a two-year sanction.
2. Mr. Ceri James is declared ineligible for a period of two years, from 25 April 2007 to 24 April 2009.
3. The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) already paid by the World Anti-Doping Association and to be retained by the CAS.
4. Each party shall bear its own costs.

CAS 2006_A_1192 Chelsea Football Club vs Adrian Mutu

21 May 2007

CAS 2006/A/1192 Chelsea Football Club Ltd. v. M.

Football
Breach of the employment contract without just cause
Standing to be sued
Dispute settlement system of the FIFA
Competence to impose sanctions

1. A club is entitled to direct its appeal at a player in order to require him to accept the FIFA jurisdiction to rule on the issue of sanction and of compensation as the FIFA Regulations provide that every player must have a written contract with the club employing him and that the contract shall be subject to the rules of FIFA which are applicable to any dispute arising out of the breach of that contract by one of the parties.

2. Art. 42 of the FIFA Regulations and Circular no. 769 expressly distinguish, for jurisdictional purposes, between the “triggering elements” or “liability stage” of a claim and the “remedies” or “quantum” stage. The “triggering elements” of the dispute may be decided either by the DRC or by a national football tribunal provided that
(a) that national tribunal is composed of “members chosen in equal numbers by players and clubs, as well as an independent chairman”, and
(b) both parties to the dispute agree to the national tribunal determining the triggering elements. Then it is the DRC alone that is exclusively competent to determine what sporting sanctions should be imposed and what financial compensation should be awarded.


In October 2004 the Player Adrian Mute tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine and the Club terminated the contract with the Player with immediate effect. On 4 November 2004, the FA’s Disciplinary Commission imposed a seven-month ban on the Player commencing on 25 October 2004. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee extended the sanction in order to obtain a worldwide effect by a decision dated 12 November 2004.

On 10 November 2004, the Player appealed against the Club’s decision with the Board of Directors of the FAPL and on 19 January 2005 Chelsea filed a claim for compensation against the Player.
At the hearing on 19 January 2005 the panel was informed of an agreement between Chelsea and Adrian Muti as to the method of resolution of the Player’s appeal and Chelsea’s claim for compensation.

By joint letter dated 26 January 2005, the Parties agreed to refer the “triggering element of the dispute”, that is, the issue of whether the Player had acted in breach of the employment contract with or without just cause or sporting just cause, to the Football Association Premier League Appeal Committee (FAPLAC).

On 20 April 2005, FAPLAC decided that the Player had committed a breach of contract without just cause within the protected period against Chelsea.

Hereafter in April 2005 the Player appealed the decision with the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS). On 15 December 2005 CAS decided to dismissed the Player’s appeal (Award in the matter CAS/A/786).

On 11 May 2006 Chelsea applied to FIFA for an award of compensation against the Player Adrian Muti. That application followed the 20 April 2005 decision and was consistent with the claim dated 4 February 2005. In particular, Chelsea requested that the DRC should award an amount of compensation in favour of the Club following the established breach of contract committed by the Player without just cause.

On 26 October 2006, the DRC decided that it did not have jurisdiction to make a decision in the dispute between Chelsea and the Player and that the claim of Chelsea was therefore not admissible (the “FIFA Decision”).

On 22 December 2006 Chelsea filed an appeal against the FIFA Decision with CAS.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 May 2007:

1.) The appeal filed by Chelsea Football Club against the decision rendered on 26 October 2006 by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber is upheld;
2.) The decision rendered on 26 October 2006 by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber is set aside;
3.) The matter is referred back to the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber which does have jurisdiction to determine and impose the appropriate sporting sanction and/or order for compensation, if any, arising out of the dispute between Chelsea Football Club and M.;
4.) (…);
5.) (…);
6.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2006_A_1155 Everton Giovanella vs FIFA

22 Feb 2007

CAS 2006/A/1155 Everton Giovanella v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

Football
Doping (19-norandrosterone, 19-noretiocholanolone)
Participation of a third party to the arbitration proceedings
Power of FIFA to review the sanctions adopted by a national federation in doping matters
Procedural violations in the adoption of a decision

1. According to the relevant provisions of the CAS Code, a third party can participate as a party to the arbitration proceedings already pending among other subjects in two situations, joinder or intervention, but subject to a common condition: that it is bound by the same arbitration agreement binding the original parties to the dispute or that it agrees in writing to such participation. Although de facto interested in the outcome of the appeal, a national federation is not a party in the FIFA proceedings leading to the decision concerning the extension worldwide of the effects of a decision adopted by its disciplinary bodies. As a result, it cannot be compelled to participate in the appeals arbitration concerning the same appealed decision. In addition, pursuant to the CAS Code, the joinder of a third party in the proceedings is possible only upon the request of the respondent, and not of the appellant. The appellant, in fact, has the possibility to name, in the statement of appeal, a plurality of respondents, if he wishes that the proceedings involve all the parties that he might think to be interested in their outcome.

2. The provisions of the FIFA Statutes concerning the obligation of the national football association to abide by the FIFA rules do not confer on FIFA the power to intervene and review disciplinary decisions adopted by national federations in anti-doping matters. Well to the contrary, the FIFA Disciplinary Code expressly states that national associations are responsible for enforcing sanctions imposed against infringements committed in their area of jurisdiction. In addition, the FIFA Disciplinary Code specifically excludes the review of the substance of the domestic decision by the competent FIFA body called to decide on the extension of the effects of sanction imposed by the domestic association.

3. According to Art. R57 of the CAS Code, the Panel has full power to review the facts and the law. The Panel consequently hears the case de novo and can consider all new contention submitted before it. This implies that, even if a violation of the principle of due process occurred in prior proceedings, it may be cured by a full appeal to the CAS. In fact, the virtue of an appeal system which allows for a full rehearing before an appellate body is that issues relating to the fairness of the hearing before the tribunal of first instance “fade to the periphery”.


The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 February 2007 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Everton Giovanella against the decision issued on 25 August 2006 by the Chairman of the FIFA Appeal Committee is dismissed.
2.) The decision issued on 25 August 2006 by the Chairman of the FIFA Appeal Committee is confirmed.
(…)

CAS 2006_A_1153 WADA vs Portuguese Football Federation & Nuno Assis Lopes de Almeida

24 Jan 2007

CAS 2006/A/1153 WADA v/ Portuguese Football Federation & Nuno Assis Lopes de Almeida

Related case:
Swiss Federal Court 4A_170_2007 Nuno Assis Lopes de Almeida
June 8, 2007

Football
Doping (19-norandrosterone)
Notification of a decision
Scope of “doping-related decisions” with regard to WADA’s right of appeal
Respect of the right of proper defence
Sanction

1. As a basic rule, a decision or other legally relevant statement is considered as being notified to the relevant person whenever that person has the opportunity to obtain knowledge of its content irrespective of whether that person has actually obtained knowledge. Thus, the relevant point in time is when a person receives the decision and not when it obtains actual knowledge of its content.

2. A 6-month suspension of a player for a doping offence is indisputably a “doping-related decision” as set forth under Article 61 para. 5 of the FIFA Statutes. The fact that a higher judicial body later acquitted the player exclusively on procedural grounds rather than entering into the substance does not change the nature or the cause of the proceedings initially opened, which remains the doping offence. Therefore, WADA is entitled to appeal against the acquittal decision.

3. A CAS panel’s scope of review is basically unrestricted. It has the full power to review the facts and the law. Hence, if there has been procedural irregularities in the proceedings before the first instance bodies, it can be cured by the arbitration proceedings if the party has been given all opportunities to exercise its right to be heard, both in writing and orally. Any potential breaches with respect to principle of natural justice are therefore remedied.

4. A two-year suspension for a first time doping offence is legally acceptable. However – provided that the applicable regulations do not incorporate the sanction of a 2-year suspension provided for in the World Anti-Doping Code but permit the tribunal dealing with the matter to exercise its discretion to impose a sanction of between 6 months and two years – in case of procedural delay, with the result that the player is left in a state of uncertainty for a period of 12 months, added to the fact that the player has already been suspended for a certain period of time after which he has reintegrated his team, a lesser sanction may be imposed so that it is not perceived as being a bigger penalty than one continuous suspension.


Mr. Nuno Assis Lopes de Almeida is a Portuguese professional footballer who played in 2006 for the club Sport Lisboa e Benfica.

In December 2005 the Federação Portuguesa de Futebol (FPF), the Portuguese Football Federation, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Nuno Assis after his A and B sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (nandrolone, norandrostenedione or norandrostenediol).
After ordering a provisional suspension, the FPF Disciplinary Committee decided on 9 June 2006 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Athlete appealed this decision and on 14 July 2006 the FPF Judicial Board decided to set aside the FPF decision of 9 June 2006 on technicalities, specifically the disregard for the defence of the Athlete, and aquitted the Athlete after he already served a 5 month period of ineligibility.

Hereafter WADA appealed the decision of the FPF Judicial Board with the Court of Arbitration for Sport and requested to set aside the decision of 14 July 2006 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
The Athlete asserted that he was the victim of a conspiracy; he disputed the reliability of the doping test; and claimed that there were irregularities with the transport, the testing and the analytical reports.

The CAS Panel concludes that there were no irregularities in the proceedings before the FPF Disciplinary Committee; there were no inconsistencies with the doping test result of the WADA laboratory in Portugal; it has been established that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation; and the Athlete failed to produce evidence for his “wild and unsubstantiated allegations”.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 January 2007:

1.) The appeal filed on 25 August 2006 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision issued on 14 July 2006 by the Judicial Board of the Portuguese Football Federation is upheld.
2.) The decision issued on 14 July 2006 by the Judicial Board of the Portuguese Football Federation is set aside.
3.) Mr Nuno Assis Lopes de Almeida is ineligible to play football for 12 months as from the notification of this award, less 161 days already served under the provisional suspensions.
4.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
5.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the court office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) paid by the World Anti-Doping Agency, which is retained by the CAS.
6.) Mr Nuno Assis Lopes de Almeida and the Portuguese Football Federation, remaining jointly and severally liable, are ordered to pay to the World Anti-Doping Agency a contribution towards all its costs incurred in connection with the present arbitration procedure in an amount of CHF 5,000 (five thousand Swiss Francs).

CAS 2006_A_1149 WADA vs Federación Mexicana de Fútbol Asociación (FMF) & José Salvador Carmona Alvarez

16 May 2007

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.
(…).

CAS 2006_A_1035 Abel Xavier vs UEFA

31 Aug 2006

TAS 2006/A/1035 Abel Xavier c/ UEFA
CAS 2006/A/1035 Abel Xavier vs UEFA

Mr. Abel Xavier is an football player for the English team FC Middlesbrough.

In October 2005 the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Abel Xavier after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance methandienone. Laboratory analysis of the Athlete’s supplements showed that one of the products contained the prohibited substance.
Considering that the concentration found in the Athlete’s sample was too high to be caused by oral administration three day prior to the doping test the UEFA Disciplinary Authority decided on 25 November 2005 to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 14 October 2005.

After dismissal by the UEFA Appeal Commission the Athlete appealed the UEFA decision of 25 November with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete argued that the imposed sanction was disproportional.

Based on the UEFA rules the CAS Panel finds that a 12 month period of ineligibility appropriate for a first anti-doping rule violation. The older age of the Athlete can’t be considered an aggravating circumstance to impose a longer period of ineligibility on the Athlete.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel decides on 31 August 2006 to partial reform the UEFA decision of 21 December 2005 and to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on 14 October 2005.

CAS 2005_C_841 CONI

26 Apr 2005

Advisary Opinion CAS 2005_O_841 CONI

On 26 November 2004 an Italian criminal court (the “Tribunale di Torino”) issued a judgment sentencing the team’s doctor of an Italian professional football club to a term of imprisonment (whose execution was however suspended), for the crime of fraud in sports competition (the “Judgment”).
Police investigation, in fact, found that the team’s doctor controlled, at the club’s premises, a large amount of pharmaceutical products, including products containing substances prohibited under anti-doping regulations, and/or subject to restrictions for the purchase and use. As a result, the Tribunale di Torino, relying in particular on the evidence given by Court appointed experts, came to the conclusion that in the period 1994-1998 a large quantity of pharmaceutical substances and medical treatments, both included and not included in the list of prohibited substances, had been administered to club’s players not therapeutically but for the specific purpose of enhancing their sport performances.
The Judgment is not final and is subject to appeal according to Italian law.

On 7 March 2005, CONI submitted to CAS the request for an advisory opinion pursuant to Article R60 of the Code of Sport-related Arbitration (the “CAS Code”).
More specifically, the request for an advisory opinion was made by CONI to know if, based on the sport law in force in the period between 1994 and 1998 or nowadays,
(i) “the use of pharmaceutical substances not expressly prohibited by Sport Law, can be disciplinary sanctioned”; and
(ii) “under which methods of investigation the use of pharmaceutical substances supplied to athletes and not included in the prohibited list can be assessed by sport authorities”.
CONI specified also that the CAS opinion was requested considering also a specific request of FIGC” and that it was seeking CAS opinion “in order to know if and under which circumstances pharmaceutical and medical treatments which are not prohibited
by national or international sport rules, can influence the regularity of sport competition”.
In accordance with Article R61 of the CAS Code, the CAS President appointed the following Panel: Mr François Carrard (President), Mr Massimo Coccia and Mr Luigi Fumagalli. By letter dated 18 March 2005 he also reformulated and forwarded to the Panel the following questions:
“1. Can the use of pharmaceutical substances which are not expressly prohibited by sports law be sanctioned by disciplinary measures?
2. By which methods of investigation the use of pharmaceutical substances supplied to athletes and which are not included in the prohibited list can be assessed by sports authorities ?”
On 24 March 2005 the President of the Panel, on behalf of the Panel, advised CONI that before rendering its opinion, the Panel was requesting some additional information, and namely:
“1. Copies of the judgement referred to in your request of March 7, 2005.
2. Copies of the “specific request of FIGC” – Italian Football Association –referred to in page 2 of your request of March 7, 2005;
3. Texts of the Italian sports regulations, in particular disciplinary, medical and anti-doping regulations, applicable to football during the entire period 1994-1998 (including the relevant lists of prohibited substances and methods).
4. Texts of the applicable FIFA regulations, in particular disciplinary, medical and anti-doping regulations, applicable during the same entire period 1994-1998 (including the relevant lists of prohibited substances and methods).
5. The report which, according to recent press news, was issued by the “Commissione Scientifica Antidoping” of CONI, or by his President Prof. Luigi Frati, with regard to some the issues raised by the judgment referred to in your request of March 7, 2005”.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin