The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on September 28, 2017, in a case involving footballer Cristiano Lopes, the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF), and FIFA. The dispute centered on an anti-doping violation after Lopes tested positive for metabolites of prohibited substances, including nandrolone and stanozolol, during an in-competition doping control on January 30, 2016. The presence of these substances in his urine sample was confirmed by both A and B sample analyses, constituting a clear violation under FIFA’s Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR). The case raised key legal questions about whether the violation was intentional and whether Lopes could qualify for a reduced sanction due to no fault or negligence.
The CAS panel emphasized the strict liability principle in anti-doping cases, meaning the mere presence of prohibited substances in an athlete’s sample is sufficient to establish a violation. Under FIFA’s ADR, intent includes "indirect intent" or "dolus eventualis," where an athlete knowingly disregards a significant risk of committing a violation. The panel noted that while proving how the substance entered the body is not strictly required to disprove intent, it is practically difficult for athletes to establish lack of intent without such evidence. Lopes initially claimed the substances entered his system through a weight-loss supplement, Lipo 6 Black, but laboratory tests found no traces of the prohibited substances in the supplement. Later, during CAS proceedings, Lopes and his wife admitted he had intentionally injected stanozolol, though this admission did not explain the presence of nandrolone metabolites.
The panel concluded that Lopes failed to prove the violation was unintentional, as his explanations were inconsistent and lacked credible evidence. Consequently, the standard four-year ineligibility period applied. The panel rejected arguments for reductions based on no fault or negligence, as Lopes could not demonstrate how the substances entered his system. Additionally, the panel dismissed the possibility of a reduced sanction for prompt admission, as neither FIFA nor the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) approved such a reduction, and Lopes’ admission was incomplete and contradictory.
The case originated from proceedings before Brazil’s Superior Court of Sports Justice (STJD), which initially imposed a two-year suspension. FIFA appealed to CAS, arguing for a stricter sanction. The CAS panel upheld the violation but increased the ineligibility period to four years, aligning with FIFA’s ADR. The panel also addressed procedural matters, including the CBF’s standing as a respondent and the calculation of the ineligibility period. The final ruling imposed a four-year suspension, effective from June 13, 2016, with credit given for a 30-day provisional suspension already served.
The decision reinforces the strict application of anti-doping rules and highlights the challenges athletes face in disproving intent or claiming no fault. It underscores the high burden of proof required for athletes to mitigate sanctions and the limited scope for reductions unless specific conditions are met. The ruling serves as a significant precedent in anti-doping jurisprudence, particularly in football, clarifying the interpretation of intent and the procedural requirements for sanction reductions.