The case involves Anderson Luis de Souza, a professional football player known as "Deco," who faced a doping-related suspension imposed by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD) in Brazil. The dispute arose after Deco tested positive for hydrochlorothiazide and tamoxifen metabolite carboxy-tamoxifen during the 2013 Rio de Janeiro State Championship. Initially suspended for 30 days by the Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (TJD/RJ), the suspension was later extended to one year by the STJD, minus the provisional suspension already served. Deco contested this decision, arguing procedural delays and inconsistencies, and filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking to overturn the suspension or reduce its severity.
The CAS proceedings highlighted key legal principles, including the authority of an arbitral tribunal to issue a consent award if the parties agree to settle the dispute, provided the settlement is bona fide and complies with public policy. The STJD, as part of the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF), lacks independent legal personality, meaning its decisions are effectively those of the CBF. Consequently, the STJD could not be a separate respondent in CAS proceedings, and its procedural role was subsumed under the CBF.
Deco's appeal to CAS included requests to set aside the STJD decision, declare him innocent, or reduce his suspension based on procedural delays. The case also raised questions about the validity of the doping test conducted by the LADETEC laboratory, which had lost its WADA accreditation. The proceedings were temporarily suspended to allow further examination of these concerns. Ultimately, the parties reached a settlement, which the CAS ratified in a consent award, ensuring its enforceability.
The dispute underscored challenges in anti-doping procedures, particularly regarding laboratory accreditation and the reliability of analytical findings. FIFA arranged for an independent retest of the samples by the WADA-accredited laboratory in Lausanne, which found no prohibited substances. The laboratory’s report also noted irregularities in the sample’s handling, casting doubt on the initial findings. Based on these results, the parties agreed to settle the dispute, proposing a Consent Award that upheld Deco’s appeal, set aside the STJD’s decision, and concluded that no anti-doping violation had been established. The arbitration costs were to be determined separately, with Deco bearing the costs and each party covering their own legal expenses.
The Sole Arbitrator reviewed the Settlement Agreement to ensure its legitimacy, confirming it was made in good faith and did not violate public policy or applicable laws. The Consent Award formally ratified the agreement, replacing the STJD’s earlier decision and terminating the arbitration. The case highlights the importance of procedural integrity, rigorous scientific standards, and the role of independent verification in resolving doping disputes. The resolution through mutual consent and CAS oversight demonstrates the effectiveness of collaborative dispute resolution in sports arbitration.