The case revolves around an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) concerning Italian footballers Daniele Mannini and Davide Possanzini, who were initially suspended for 15 days by the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) for delaying a doping test in December 2007. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed this decision, arguing the players had refused the test and should face a harsher penalty under the WADA Code. In January 2009, CAS partially upheld WADA's appeal, increasing the suspension to one year, minus the 15 days already served.
Following the CAS ruling, the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) and the players sought a revision of the decision, citing newly discovered evidence. They claimed the delay in the doping test was due to a long-standing practice where post-game tests were treated as "advance notice tests," meaning immediate compliance was not strictly enforced. They argued this evidence, unavailable during the original proceedings, could have influenced the outcome. Alongside the revision request, they sought a stay of execution to prevent the players from serving the suspension while the revision was pending.
The CAS panel examined whether it had jurisdiction to review its own award, noting that while the Swiss Private International Law Act and CAS Code typically do not allow such reviews, the parties' mutual agreement permitted a revision under analogous legal principles. The panel also assessed the stay request, emphasizing the irreparable harm the players would face if forced to miss games during the suspension, as these could not be recuperated even if the award was later overturned. Conversely, if a stay was granted and the suspension upheld, the missed period could be added to the end of the penalty.
The panel applied a three-part test to evaluate the stay request: whether it would prevent irreparable harm, whether the players' interests outweighed WADA's, and the likelihood of success on the merits. It found that missing games would harm the players' careers, satisfying the first condition. On the second, it concluded the players' interests in avoiding irreparable harm outweighed WADA's interest in immediate enforcement, as any suspension time avoided during a stay could be added later if the award were upheld. Regarding the third condition, the panel acknowledged uncertainties about the admissibility and relevance of the new evidence but deferred a final assessment until all evidence was examined.
Ultimately, the panel granted the stay, emphasizing it was provisional and did not prejudge the revision's outcome. The decision balanced procedural fairness with the practical consequences for the players, prioritizing the prevention of irreversible harm to their careers. The costs associated with the stay were deferred until the conclusion of the revision proceedings. The case highlights the CAS's cautious approach to revising arbitral awards while ensuring fairness and minimizing undue harm to athletes during ongoing legal processes.