The case involves an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva (STJD) concerning Brazilian football player Jobson Leandro Pereira de Oliveira, who tested positive for cocaine metabolites during two in-competition anti-doping controls in November and December 2009. Initially, the STJD imposed a two-year suspension, later reduced to six months on appeal, citing general legal principles and international sports law. WADA challenged this reduction, arguing the original sanction was appropriate under FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR) and the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC). The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) addressed several key issues, ruling that the STJD lacked independent legal personality and could not be a respondent, confirming Brazilian athletes' obligation to adhere to international anti-doping rules, and upholding cocaine's classification as a prohibited substance under FIFA ADR.
The CAS emphasized athletes' responsibility to avoid doping violations, rejecting the player's claim of cocaine dependency as insufficient to justify a reduced sanction. The panel found his age and experience did not mitigate his negligence. Procedurally, the CAS noted the nearly twenty-month adjudication delay and ruled the suspension should start earlier than the award's notification date to ensure fairness. The Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) and STJD largely abstained from active participation, with the CBF refusing to cover arbitration costs. Ultimately, the CAS upheld WADA's appeal, reinstating the two-year suspension while adjusting the start date to account for delays.
The player argued his cocaine dependence constituted an exceptional circumstance, but the panel found his evidence insufficient. Medical reports indicated his dependency worsened post-suspension, and his treatment adherence was inconsistent. The panel concluded his voluntary drug use demonstrated significant negligence, failing to meet the high standard required for sanction reduction. The decision reinforced strict liability principles, holding athletes accountable for substances in their bodies regardless of intent. The panel also dismissed arguments based on proportionality and equal treatment under Swiss law, affirming the two-year sanction's compatibility with international legal standards.
The CAS ruled the suspension period should begin on September 6, 2010, accounting for procedural delays, and end on March 6, 2012, after crediting time already served. The decision underscored the importance of harmonized anti-doping enforcement and the limited circumstances under which sanctions can be reduced. The ruling clarified jurisdictional and procedural aspects in international sports arbitration, reinforcing CAS's authority in resolving such disputes. The case highlights the tension between rigid anti-doping sanctions and individual circumstances, ultimately prioritizing regulatory consistency and athlete accountability.