The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) concerning a doping violation by Spanish football player Gregorio Ciudad Real Linares. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed a decision by the Real Federación Española de Fútbol (RFEF) which had imposed a one-year suspension on the player after he tested positive for benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine, during an in-competition anti-doping test in June 2009. The substance is classified as prohibited under WADA's 2009 Prohibited List, FIFA's Anti-Doping Regulations, and Spanish doping laws. The player did not contest the findings or request analysis of the B sample, nor did he appeal the RFEF's initial decision.
WADA argued that the one-year sanction was insufficient, as benzoylecgonine is not considered a substance of "less seriousness" under Spanish law (Act 7/2006), which distinguishes between "very serious" violations (carrying a two-to-four-year ban) and "serious" violations (three months to two years). WADA contended that mitigating factors such as the player's lack of prior violations were irrelevant and sought a two-year suspension, consistent with standard sanctions for non-specified prohibited substances. The RFEF agreed with WADA's position in its response to the appeal, while the player did not participate in the proceedings.
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from Israel, France, and Spain, ruled based on written submissions without a hearing, as permitted under CAS rules. The panel upheld WADA's appeal, setting aside the RFEF's one-year sanction and imposing a two-year period of ineligibility on the player, effective from the date of the award. The decision emphasized that the presence of a non-specified prohibited substance warranted a standard two-year ban under applicable anti-doping regulations, regardless of mitigating circumstances. The ruling reinforced the principle of strict liability in doping cases, holding athletes responsible for prohibited substances in their bodies regardless of intent.
The panel rejected the RFEF's justification for a reduced sanction, noting that the mitigating factors cited were irrelevant to the legal criteria for reducing the violation's severity. The suspension's start date was determined based on FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations, crediting any provisional suspension served. The RFEF had requested confidentiality for the proceedings, but WADA opposed this. Since the parties did not agree, the panel denied the RFEF's request, citing CAS rules mandating public disclosure unless both parties consent to confidentiality.
The final ruling upheld WADA's appeal, overturning the RFEF's decision and imposing a two-year ineligibility period on the player, effective from the date the award was communicated to him. Any prior suspension, whether imposed or voluntarily accepted, would count toward the total sanction. The decision underscores the strict application of anti-doping regulations and the importance of transparency in such cases, reinforcing the role of CAS in ensuring consistent enforcement of anti-doping rules across jurisdictions.