The case involves a doping violation by Portuguese footballer Nuno Assis Lopes de Almeida, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) following an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The dispute arose after the Portuguese Football Federation (FPF) initially suspended the player for six months due to a positive doping test for 19-norandrosterone, a metabolite of banned substances, but later acquitted him on procedural grounds. WADA challenged this acquittal, arguing it undermined anti-doping efforts, and sought a two-year suspension. The CAS panel, composed of Hans Nater, Peter Leaver, and Jean-Jacques Bertrand, addressed several legal and procedural issues.
The panel clarified that a decision is considered notified when the recipient has the opportunity to know its content, regardless of actual awareness. It confirmed WADA's right to appeal, as the original suspension was a doping-related decision under FIFA statutes, even though the FPF Judicial Board overturned it on procedural grounds. The panel emphasized that the case's nature remained tied to doping, justifying WADA's intervention. It also asserted CAS's broad authority to review facts and law, noting that procedural irregularities in earlier proceedings could be remedied if the parties were given a fair opportunity to present their case, ensuring natural justice.
On the merits, the panel found the player guilty of a doping violation, as the presence of 19-norandrosterone in his samples was conclusively established. The player's claims of procedural errors, delays in sample transport, and unreliable test results were dismissed due to lack of credible evidence. The panel upheld the strict liability principle under FPF regulations, meaning the presence of a prohibited substance constitutes an offense regardless of intent.
Regarding sanctions, the panel acknowledged that a two-year suspension for a first-time offense is legally acceptable under the World Anti-Doping Code. However, it considered mitigating factors, including procedural delays by the FPF, which left the player in uncertainty for 12 months, and the fact that he had already served a provisional suspension. The panel deemed a lesser sanction appropriate to avoid disproportionately harsh penalties, ultimately imposing a 12-month suspension, deducting the 161 days already served.
The ruling reaffirmed the importance of procedural fairness while ensuring effective enforcement of anti-doping regulations. It balanced strict adherence to rules with considerations of fairness, particularly in cases involving delays and prior suspensions. The decision underscores CAS's role in resolving sports disputes and maintaining the integrity of anti-doping measures, while also highlighting the need for timely and consistent procedures in such cases.