The case involves Italian football players Daniele Mannini and Davide Possanzini, who were accused of violating anti-doping rules by failing to report immediately to a doping control station after a match on December 1, 2007. The players were notified of the test by their team doctor but were intercepted by their coach and team president, who directed them to attend an urgent team meeting. The players complied, delaying their arrival at the doping control station by approximately 35 minutes. Although they eventually provided samples, which showed no prohibited substances, their delay led to allegations of violating Article 2.3 of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code, which pertains to refusing or failing to submit to sample collection.
Initially, the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) acquitted the players, but the decision was overturned by CONI’s Judges of Final Jurisdiction, who imposed a 15-day suspension. WADA appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing for a stricter penalty. In January 2009, CAS increased the suspension to one year, minus the 15 days already served. The players and FIGC later sought a revision of the award, citing new evidence that they claimed could have influenced the initial ruling. They argued that there was widespread confusion in Italian football at the time regarding doping control procedures, with many believing that in-competition tests were treated as advance-notice tests, where continuous chaperoning was not strictly required.
The CAS panel examined the admissibility of the new evidence under Swiss Private International Law and the CAS Code, which do not explicitly provide for review but allow revision if parties agree. The panel applied a dual test: first, assessing whether the new evidence existed at the time of the initial award and whether the claimants could prove they were unable to present it earlier, and second, determining if the new facts were relevant and conclusive enough to modify the original decision. The panel emphasized the importance of diligence, noting that claimants must prove they were not negligent in omitting the evidence earlier.
The players and FIGC presented witness testimonies, including statements from anti-doping officers and team officials, suggesting that the players’ delay was tolerated and that the procedures were not clearly understood. The panel acknowledged that the players lacked a clear understanding of their obligations due to inconsistent enforcement and inadequate education by FIGC and the Players’ Union. The rules were complex and not easily comprehensible, even for legal professionals, and the players had only an "impressionistic" understanding of their duties. The panel concluded that the players could not be held responsible for their lack of knowledge, as they had not been adequately informed or educated about the strict requirements.
Ultimately, the panel retracted its earlier award imposing a two-year sanction and upheld the original decision by CONI’s Judges of Final Jurisdiction, which had cleared the players of wrongdoing. The ruling highlighted the importance of clear communication and consistent enforcement of anti-doping regulations to ensure athletes understand their obligations. The case underscores the challenges in applying anti-doping rules uniformly and the need for procedural fairness in sports arbitration. The CAS dismissed WADA’s appeal, confirming the decision to exonerate the players.