The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding an appeal by FIFA against the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) and Edgar Alfredo Schurtz, a Brazilian non-professional futsal player, over a doping violation. Schurtz tested positive for Furosemide, a prohibited diuretic, during a match in May 2007. He admitted using the medication Lasix, which contained Furosemide, for diuretic and headache issues but claimed ignorance of its banned status. The Italian Disciplinary Commission initially suspended him for one year, citing "non-significant negligence." FIFA appealed to CAS, arguing for a two-year suspension as mandated by its regulations unless the player proved "no significant fault or negligence."
The CAS panel confirmed its jurisdiction, noting FIFA's appeal was admissible under its statutes despite FIGC's late objection. Schurtz bore the burden of proving how the substance entered his body and demonstrating his fault was not significant, with the standard of proof being a "balance of probability." The panel found Schurtz's negligence significant because he had used Lasix for years without seeking alternatives or a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE), knowingly risking a doping violation. His admission, non-professional status, and lack of awareness about TUE requirements were deemed irrelevant to mitigating fault.
The panel upheld FIFA's appeal, imposing a two-year suspension but backdating it to the start of his provisional suspension in June 2007, acknowledging delays not his fault. The decision reinforced strict liability in anti-doping cases, emphasizing athletes must exercise utmost caution and that mitigating circumstances apply only in exceptional cases. The ruling aligns with CAS jurisprudence and the WADA Code, underscoring the high burden on athletes to prove lack of significant fault.
Under the 2007 FIFA Disciplinary Code, the standard sanction for such violations was a two-year suspension, reducible if the player proved no significant fault or negligence. Schurtz failed to meet this burden, as his lack of due diligence in verifying the medication's contents constituted significant negligence. The 2009 FIFA Disciplinary Code classified Furosemide as a specified substance, allowing for potential reduction if the player proved no intent to enhance performance. However, the panel found no grounds for reduction, as Schurtz's actions demonstrated significant fault.
The panel also addressed procedural aspects, confirming FIFA's right to appeal to CAS under Article 63 of the FIFA Statutes, which allows appeals within 21 days of notification after exhausting internal remedies. FIGC's initial jurisdictional challenge was dismissed as it had implicitly accepted CAS's authority by signing the Order of Procedure. The panel emphasized the importance of adhering to anti-doping regulations and the necessity for athletes to provide comprehensive evidence when contesting violations.
Regarding the suspension period, the panel applied Article 53 of the FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations and Article 10.9 of the WADA Code 2009, which allow for backdating the suspension start date in cases of delays not attributable to the player or timely admissions. Schurtz's provisional suspension was credited, reducing his remaining ineligibility to one year from September 26, 2008.
The CAS ruling overturned FIGC's decision, imposing a two-year suspension on Schurtz, reduced by the one-year provisional suspension already served. The decision underscores the strict liability principle in doping cases, the limited scope for leniency, and the procedural requirements for appeals under FIFA's statutes. It highlights the importance of athlete diligence in medication use and reinforces CAS's role in adjudicating doping disputes when internal processes are exhausted. The case serves as a reminder of the stringent standards set by FIFA and WADA to maintain fairness and integrity in sports.