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


In June 2007 the Qatar Football Association (QFA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Ali Jumah A.A. Al-Mohadanni after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Thereupon the QFA Disciplinary Committee accepted the Athlete's explanation that a supplement was the source and on 7 June 2007 it decided to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in December 2007 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the QFA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to sanction the Athlete for 2 years.

WADA contended that the presence of 19-norandrosterone has been established in the Athlete's sample. Also the concentration in his sample was too high to be the result of endogenous production, rather the result of exogenous use of this substance.

Further WADA contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the substance had entered his system and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

The Panel finds that the presence of 19-norandrosterone had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Following assessment of the evidence in this case the Panel concludes that the Athlete acted with Significant Fault or Negligence. The Panel considers that there was no evidence that the Athlete took any particular precautions when purchasing and ingesting the nutritional supplement in question.

Therefore on 21 August 2008 The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:

1.) The World Anti-Doping Agency's appeal against the decision dated 7 June 2007 of the QFA Disciplinary Committee is upheld.

2.) The decision issued by the Qatar Football Association Disciplinary Committee is set aside.

3.) The Player, Mr. Ali Jumah A.A. Al-Mohadainni, is declared ineligible for a period of 21 months starting from the 27 May 2008.

4.) All ether 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 WADA, which is retained by CAS.

6.) The QFA is ordered to pay the amount of CHF 5,000 (five thousand Swiss Francs) as a contribution towards the expenses incurred by WADA with this arbitration proceeding,

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.

Thereupon 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. The presence of Fenproporex was 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).

Following assessment 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 v/FAW and James

In April 2007 the Football Association of Wales (FAW) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Ceri James after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine.

Consequently the FAW Appeals Panel decided on 22 May 2007 to impose a fine and a reduced 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in August 2007 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the FAW Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The case was settled based on the written submissions of the parties.

WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The FAW acknowledged that the imposed 6 month sanction was not in accordance with the FIFA Disciplinary Code.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He requested the Panel for a reduced sanction.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel determines that a sanction must be imposed in accordance with the FIFA Rules and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 December 2007:

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 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.

Consequently on 4 November 2004, the FA’s Disciplinary Commission imposed a seven-month ban on the Player commencing on 25 October 2004. Thereupon 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 (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.

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

The Panel holds that under Article 21 of the 2001 FIFA Regulations, where a party has been determined unilaterally to have breached his contract with the other party without just cause, compensation for the loss of the non-breaching party is payable, calculated as set out in Article 22.

the Panel rules that the two-stage procedure is perfectly admissible under Article 42 of the 2001 FIFA Regulations. Indeed, it is a procedure specifically provided for by FIFA. The Panel, therefore, rejects the Player’s different construction.

As a result the Panel finds that, at the second stage of the Article 42 procedure, the DRC does have jurisdiction to determine the appropriate sanction and/or order for compensation arising out of the dispute between Chelsea and the Player. He is not entitled to object to the FIFA jurisdiction.

Therefore 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 Mutu;

4.) (…);

5.) (…);

6.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

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”.

In October 2005 the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) imposed a 2 year sanction on the Brazilian football player Everton Giovanella after he tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone). Thereupon the FIFA Disciplinary Committee decided on 10 October 2005 to to extend this period of ineligibility worldwide.

Next the Athlete's appeals were dismissed:

• on 7 November 2005 by the RFEF Appeal Committee;
• on 13 July 2006 by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee;
• on 25 August 2006 by the FIFA Appeal Committee.

Hereafter in September 2006 the Athlete appealed the FIFA Appeal Committee decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Panel settled this case based on the written submissions of the Parties.

The dispute to be determined by the Panel follows the adoption of the Appealed Decision, whereby the review of the sanction adopted on the Athlete by the RFEF with the RFEF Decision has been denied and the effects of such sanction have been extended to the international level. In other words, and in substance, the dispute concerns the challenge brought by the Athlete against both the sanction adopted by the Spanish football federation, and against the extension worldwide of the effects of the RFEF Decision.

The Panel concludes that no room is left for a review of the merits of the RFEF Decision, i.e. for a new assessment of the existence, or not, of an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel deems that any and all criticisms submitted by the Athlete against the merits of the RFEF Decision, with respect to the “severe irregularities” allegedly affecting the sanction adopted on the Athlete, in order to have the sanction annulled, cannot be reviewed by this Panel.

Therefore 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 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).

Consequently the FPF Disciplinary Committee decided on 9 June 2006 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Yet following the Athlete's appeal the FPF Judicial Board decided on 14 July 2006 to set aside the first instance decision and to acquit the Athlete.

Hereafter WADA appealed the decision of the FPF Judicial Board with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the decision of 14 July 2006 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In his defence the Athlete asserted that he was the victim of a conspiracy; he disputed the reliability of the doping test; and claimed that there had been irregularities with the transport, the testing and the analytical reports.

The CAS Panel establishes no irregularities regarding the proceedings before the FPF Disciplinary Committee. Further the Panel establishes no inconsistencies with the doping test conducted in the Lisbon Laboratory.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and deems that he failed to produce any evidence in support of 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 & 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.
(…).

TAS 2006/A/1035 Abel Xavier c/ UEFA

CAS 2006/A/1035 Abel Xavier vs UEFA

In October 2005 the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Abel Xavier after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Metandienone.

Consequently the UEFA Disciplinary Authority decided on 25 November 2005 to impose a 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete which thereupon was upheld by the UEFA Appeal Commission on 21 December 2005.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the UEFA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and for a reduced sanction.

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 partially 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.