The case involves Jobson Leandro Pereira de Oliveira, a Brazilian professional football player, appealing against FIFA's decision to extend a doping-related sanction imposed by Saudi Arabian authorities to have worldwide effect. The dispute centers on whether the sanction meets the conditions outlined in Article 137 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC), which requires proper citation, an opportunity to present a case, compliance with FIFA regulations, and alignment with public order standards. The Saudi Arabian Anti-Doping Committee (SAADC) initially imposed a four-year ban on the player for allegedly refusing a doping test, later increased to eight years on appeal. However, due to procedural irregularities, the appeal decision was canceled, and the original four-year ban was reinstated.
The player contested the extension of the sanction, arguing he was not properly notified of the proceedings and that his right to due process was violated. He claimed the SAADC failed to follow FIFA's Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR), including proper notification by a Doping Control Officer and the absence of essential procedural safeguards. FIFA maintained that the player was adequately informed through multiple attempts, including phone calls and document deliveries, but he refused to cooperate. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Panel examined whether the sanction complied with FIFA's criteria for global extension. It found that while the notification process had flaws, the player's refusal to engage with the proceedings undermined his claims. The Panel invoked the legal principle of venire contra factum proprium, preventing the player from contradicting his own prior conduct to the detriment of the process.
Regarding compliance with FIFA regulations, the Panel noted that the violation—refusing a doping test—was recognized under FIFA ADR, and the four-year sanction was within permissible limits, especially given the player's prior doping violation. The Panel rejected the player's argument that the sanction violated public order, including his right to work and privacy, emphasizing that anti-doping rules are essential to maintaining fair play in sports. It distinguished this case from the Matuzalem case, which involved financial compensation rather than doping violations, and upheld the sanction as proportionate under the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code.
The Panel concluded that FIFA's extension of the sanction was justified, dismissing the player's appeal. It highlighted the limited scope of review in such cases, focusing on procedural compliance rather than re-examining the merits of the original decision. The decision underscores the balance between enforcing anti-doping regulations globally and ensuring procedural fairness, reinforcing the authority of sports governing bodies to uphold disciplinary measures. The player's failure to exhaust available legal remedies and his refusal to participate in the proceedings weakened his case, leading to the dismissal of his appeal and the confirmation of the worldwide ban.