The case involves Joel Melchor Sánchez Alegría, a professional Peruvian football player, who appealed a decision by FIFA regarding an anti-doping rule violation. The player tested positive for methylhexaneamine, a prohibited substance, during a preliminary competition match for the 2014 FIFA World Cup. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reviewed the case, addressing key legal and procedural issues. The CAS panel, composed of Stuart McInnes, João Nogueira da Rocha, and Pedro Tomás Marqués, first considered the admissibility of the appeal. It ruled that minor deficiencies in the Statement of Appeal should not invalidate it, allowing a short deadline for supplementation to preserve the appellant’s right to appeal. The panel affirmed its authority to conduct a de novo review of the facts and law, including rectifying prior procedural deficiencies.
The panel examined whether the player lacked intent to enhance sport performance, emphasizing that the athlete must provide corroborating evidence beyond personal statements. It found that the player’s failure to conduct proper research, consult the team doctor, or disclose the product in his doping control form demonstrated recklessness, negating any claim of lack of intent. The panel also assessed the player’s degree of fault or negligence, noting he consulted a nutritionist but failed to take other necessary precautions. The presence of a warning label in English, which the player allegedly did not understand, was deemed insufficient to excuse his negligence. The panel concluded the player’s actions showed significant fault, warranting no reduction in the sanction.
The decision reinforced the principle that athletes bear personal responsibility for ensuring no prohibited substances enter their bodies. The player could not shift liability by blaming others, such as the nutritionist, for negligence. The panel upheld FIFA’s decision, finding the player’s conduct fell short of the required diligence under the FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations. The case underscores the strict liability nature of anti-doping rules and the high standard of care expected from athletes. It also highlights the CAS’s role in ensuring procedural fairness while maintaining rigorous enforcement of anti-doping regulations.
The player argued for a reduction or elimination of the sanction, claiming the substance entered his body through a contaminated nutritional supplement without intent to enhance performance. The panel rejected this, noting the player’s failure to consult his team doctor or disclose the supplement on his doping control form. The panel emphasized that professional athletes must exercise greater diligence in verifying supplements. The player’s reliance on the product label and lack of further investigation demonstrated significant negligence. The panel upheld the standard two-year sanction, dismissing the appeal and confirming the suspension. The ruling underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping cases and the high standard of care expected from professional athletes.
The CAS affirmed its jurisdiction over the case, as the player had exhausted all available legal remedies under FIFA’s regulations. The panel also addressed procedural matters, confirming the FIFA Appeal Committee’s decision via telephone conference did not violate the player’s rights, as he had been heard in prior proceedings. The CAS’s full power to review the case de novo cured any procedural deficiencies. The decision reinforces the importance of procedural rigor and fairness in sports arbitration, ensuring athletes’ rights are protected while upholding anti-doping regulations. The panel’s ruling affirmed the original sanction, emphasizing that athletes must exercise utmost caution to avoid violations.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed the player’s appeal, upholding the FIFA Appeal Committee’s decision and the two-year suspension. The ruling highlights the complexities of anti-doping violations, particularly concerning unintentional ingestion and the responsibilities of athletes and governing bodies. The case serves as a reminder of the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations and the legal avenues available for athletes to challenge disciplinary decisions. The panel’s decision underscores the balance between procedural fairness and the rigorous application of anti-doping rules in professional sports.