The case revolves around an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) concerning an appeal by FIFA against the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) and footballer Alessio Recchi. The dispute stemmed from Recchi's positive doping test for benzoylecgonine, a cocaine metabolite, during a Serie C/2 match in June 2007. Recchi admitted to using cocaine during a personal crisis following marital issues but denied any intent to enhance performance. The Italian National Disciplinary Commission initially imposed a one-year suspension, starting July 2007, accepting his explanation as plausible and ruling his negligence as "non-significant," which allowed for reduced sanctions under WADA rules.
FIFA appealed to CAS, arguing the sanction was too lenient. The CAS panel confirmed its jurisdiction, noting FIFA's right to appeal within 21 days of notification. It emphasized that athletes must prove how a prohibited substance entered their body and demonstrate their negligence was not significant to avoid sanctions. While Recchi's explanation was deemed plausible, the panel found his failure to disclose cocaine use before the match, seek medical advice, or note it on the doping control form constituted significant negligence. The panel clarified the standard of proof, requiring Recchi to establish his version by a "balance of probability." It rejected his claim that lack of performance-enhancing intent should mitigate the sanction, as cocaine is not a "specified substance" under WADA rules. However, it acknowledged procedural delays were not Recchi's fault and adjusted the suspension start date to July 2007, the date of his provisional suspension.
Ultimately, the panel upheld FIFA's appeal, maintaining the one-year suspension but adjusting its commencement. The decision reinforced strict liability in doping cases, highlighting the high burden on athletes to prove lack of significant fault, even in non-performance-related contexts. The ruling aligns with CAS jurisprudence and WADA's anti-doping framework.
In subsequent proceedings, FIGC contested CAS's jurisdiction, but the panel dismissed this, noting FIGC's prior acceptance of CAS's authority. On the merits, FIFA argued for a two-year suspension, while FIGC and Recchi defended the one-year sanction, citing personal distress. The panel ruled Recchi's actions warranted a two-year suspension, as his negligence was significant, and personal circumstances did not justify reduction. It annulled FIGC's decision and imposed the full suspension, underscoring strict liability and limited scope for mitigation.
The panel also addressed procedural delays, crediting Recchi for the provisional suspension served and adjusting the remaining suspension period. The final ruling imposed a two-year suspension, reduced by the one-year provisional suspension already served, with the remaining year starting from September 25, 2008. The case highlights the stringent application of anti-doping regulations and the importance of athlete accountability.