The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding a doping violation by Brazilian footballer Vinicius Sarturi Hess. The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) appealed against a decision by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD), which had reduced Hess's suspension from one year to six months after he tested positive for fenproporex, a prohibited stimulant. The CAS panel addressed several key issues, including jurisdiction, procedural fairness, the validity of the doping test, and the appropriate suspension period.
The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction over decisions made by the STJD, as the STJD is part of the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) and lacks independent legal personality. However, the CAS clarified it could not hear appeals directly against the STJD as a separate entity. The panel also ruled that filing an appeal before receiving the complete case file does not render the appeal inadmissible, provided the respondent’s rights are not impaired. The CAS rejected Hess's argument that the use of plastic bottles for sample collection invalidated the test, noting that World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) standards do not mandate glass containers and that no evidence of tampering was presented.
Regarding the suspension, the CAS upheld FIFA's appeal, imposing a two-year ineligibility period, the standard sanction for a first violation under FIFA’s Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR). The panel adjusted the starting date of the suspension to account for procedural delays not attributable to Hess, setting it to October 1, 2011. Importantly, the CAS ruled that Hess should receive credit for the six-month suspension he had already served, ensuring fairness and avoiding an excessive penalty.
The case highlights the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are responsible for prohibited substances in their bodies regardless of intent. The CAS emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, evidence-based decisions, and equitable treatment in disciplinary matters. The final decision underscores the balance between enforcing anti-doping rules and ensuring penalties are proportionate, particularly when procedural delays or prior decisions affect the athlete’s suspension period. The ruling serves as a precedent for handling similar cases involving jurisdictional disputes, procedural challenges, and the application of anti-doping sanctions.