The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on January 29, 2009, in a case involving the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI), the Italian Football Federation (FIGC), and football players Daniele Mannini and Davide Possanzini. The case stemmed from an incident on December 1, 2007, when the players were selected for doping control after a Serie B match but delayed their arrival at the testing station by approximately 25 minutes to attend a team meeting. During this delay, they were not under the supervision of doping control officials. Although the players eventually provided samples that showed no prohibited substances, their actions were scrutinized under anti-doping regulations.
Initially, the Ufficio di Procura Antidoping (UPA) found no intent to avoid testing but cited non-cooperation under procedural rules. The FIGC Court of First Instance acquitted the players, but the CONI Judges of Final Jurisdiction (GUI) later imposed a 15-day suspension. WADA appealed to CAS, arguing the players violated Article 2.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), which prohibits refusing or failing to submit to sample collection without compelling justification. The players contested CAS jurisdiction, claiming procedural errors and arguing that no Article 2.3 violation had been addressed in prior proceedings. The CAS panel, composed of Dirk-Reiner Martens, Quentin Byrne-Sutton, and Ercus Stewart, dismissed these arguments, confirming its jurisdiction and the admissibility of WADA’s appeal.
The panel emphasized that athletes must comply immediately with doping control procedures and remain under constant supervision until samples are collected. Any unauthorized delay without compelling justification constitutes a violation. The players claimed they believed the doping control officer had consented to their delay, but witness testimony contradicted this. The panel found no evidence of consent and ruled that pressure from team officials did not justify the delay. The players’ awareness of their obligations and their failure to prioritize doping control led the panel to conclude they violated Article 2.3.
Regarding sanctions, the panel noted that a first violation of Article 2.3 typically carries a two-year suspension, reducible to one year if the athlete bears no significant fault. The panel deemed the initial 15-day sanction by CONI insufficient and imposed a one-year suspension, crediting the 15 days already served. The suspension began on the date of the CAS decision, as the players had competed after their initial sanction. The panel stressed that this ruling was case-specific and not a precedent for future violations.
The CAS decision reinforced the strict enforcement of anti-doping protocols, highlighting the importance of immediate compliance to maintain the integrity of testing procedures. It also clarified the jurisdictional scope of CAS in reviewing anti-doping cases and the burden of proof required to establish violations. The ruling underscored that athletes must prioritize doping control over team directives, ensuring no unsupervised time that could compromise test results. The case serves as a reminder of the stringent standards governing anti-doping efforts in sports.