The case revolves around Ricardo Jorge Cecília Batista, a Portuguese professional football goalkeeper, who appealed a two-year suspension imposed by the Portuguese Football Federation (PFF) after testing positive for the banned substance Prednisolone. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was tasked with reviewing the case, focusing on jurisdiction, procedural fairness, and the burden of proof in doping sanctions. Batista, as a registered player, was subject to the PFF's statutes and Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR), which mandate that appeals against disciplinary decisions be referred to CAS. The PFF, as a FIFA member, is bound by FIFA statutes, ensuring CAS's jurisdiction over such disputes. The CAS panel had full authority to review facts and law de novo, meaning any procedural irregularities at the initial disciplinary level could be remedied during the appeal.
The incident occurred after Batista tested positive for Prednisolone following a match in January 2011. He claimed the substance entered his system through an anti-inflammatory drug prescribed by a doctor for back pain but failed to declare this during doping control. The PFF's Disciplinary Committee imposed a two-year ban, upheld by the PFF's Council of Justice. Batista argued the disciplinary process was flawed, citing delays and the failure to provide him with the Anti-Doping Authority of Portugal's (ADoP) opinion recommending the sanction. Under doping regulations, once a banned substance is detected, the burden shifts to the athlete to prove how it entered their system and that they had no intent to enhance performance. Batista failed to meet this burden, as he could not conclusively demonstrate the source of the substance or establish lack of intent.
The CAS upheld the two-year suspension, emphasizing the strict liability principle in doping cases, where athletes are responsible for any banned substances in their bodies, regardless of intent. The ruling highlighted the importance of transparency in disciplinary proceedings and the role of CAS in ensuring fair adjudication. Batista's arguments, including his position as a goalkeeper requiring less physical effort and the fact that only one of three doping tests was positive, were dismissed. The Sole Arbitrator noted that a player’s position is irrelevant in determining intent, and the presence of a prohibited substance constitutes a violation. The arbitrator also rejected claims of procedural delays and violations of due process, concluding that the 60-day deadline for issuing a decision was procedural rather than substantive and that Batista's rights were adequately protected through the appeals process.
The decision reinforced the strict enforcement of anti-doping rules, with the two-year suspension deemed appropriate as the minimum penalty for a first-time violation. The suspension period began on the date of his provisional suspension (7 April 2011), with credit given for time already served. The CAS dismissed Batista's appeal, affirming the PFF's decision and closing the matter with no further legal actions or appeals permitted. The case serves as a reminder to athletes to verify all medications with medical professionals and comply with anti-doping reporting requirements, underscoring the importance of strict liability and the limited avenues for overturning sanctions unless procedural or substantive errors are proven.