The case involves an arbitration by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) between the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the Federação Bahiana de Futebol (FBF) along with the athlete Nivaldo Araújo Carneiro Filho. The dispute arose from a doping violation where the athlete tested positive for Nandrolone, a prohibited substance, during an in-competition test on April 19, 2009. The analysis was conducted by a WADA-approved laboratory, confirming the adverse finding. The athlete did not request a B-sample analysis and later renounced his right to defend himself in the proceedings. The Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva de Futebol da Bahia (TJDF) initially suspended the athlete for 120 days, deducting a provisional 30-day suspension already served. WADA appealed this decision to CAS, seeking a two-year ban as per FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR).
The CAS panel addressed key legal issues, confirming that regional football bodies affiliated with FIFA are bound by FIFA regulations, including the ADR. WADA, as the international anti-doping authority, had the right to appeal directly to CAS without exhausting internal remedies, even if it lacked standing in national judicial bodies. The panel clarified that procedural rules applicable at the time of the appealed decision govern the appeal process, while substantive rules in force at the time of the doping violation apply to the merits of the case. Since the athlete did not file a defense or plead mitigating circumstances, the panel did not consider potential reductions of the standard two-year sanction under Article 45 of the FIFA ADR.
WADA argued that the TJDF’s 120-day suspension was insufficient and inconsistent with FIFA’s anti-doping framework. The athlete, unemployed at the time, did not participate in the CAS arbitration. The case highlights WADA’s role in enforcing uniform anti-doping standards globally and the jurisdictional reach of CAS in reviewing national sports disciplinary decisions. The panel’s ruling reinforced the principle that doping violations must be adjudicated under the applicable regulations at the time of the offense, ensuring consistency in sanctions. The decision also underscored that athletes who fail to contest doping charges forfeit the opportunity to argue for reduced penalties.
The procedural admissibility of WADA’s appeal was confirmed, as it was filed within the 21-day deadline stipulated by FIFA ADR. The applicable law was determined to be primarily FIFA regulations, supplemented by Brazilian law and Swiss law where necessary. The panel emphasized that procedural aspects follow the regulations in force at the time of the TJDF Decision, while substantive aspects adhere to those in effect when the doping test was conducted. On the merits, the panel examined whether the athlete committed an anti-doping violation. Nandrolone, the substance found in the athlete's sample, is classified as a prohibited anabolic agent under WADA’s 2009 Prohibited List and FIFA ADR. Article 5.1 of the FIFA ADR establishes strict liability, meaning athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances in their samples regardless of intent.
The athlete did not dispute the laboratory findings but claimed the presence of Nandrolone resulted from prescribed medication, though no evidence was provided. The CAS panel confirmed the violation under Article 5 of the FIFA ADR and imposed a two-year ineligibility period, effective from the date of the award, but credited the 120-day suspension already served. The CAS upheld WADA’s appeal, set aside the original ruling, and declared the athlete ineligible for the remaining period after deducting the time already served. The decision underscores the strict application of anti-doping regulations and the importance of evidence in establishing violations.