The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding an appeal by FIFA against a disciplinary decision by CONMEBOL concerning footballer José Angulo Caicedo, who tested positive for cocaine and its metabolites during a doping control. The key issue revolved around the applicable anti-doping regulations and the appropriate sanction for the player. The CAS panel clarified that FIFA’s right to appeal is governed by its own Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR), ensuring uniform international standards, and emphasized that FIFA’s regulations take precedence over CONMEBOL’s to guarantee consistent enforcement. The player tested positive after the 2016 Copa Libertadores final, leading to a provisional suspension and a one-year ban by CONMEBOL. FIFA appealed, arguing for a stricter four-year suspension under its regulations, as the player failed to prove the violation was unintentional or due to no fault or negligence.
The panel ruled that CONMEBOL’s decision was insufficient under FIFA’s stricter standards and modified the sanction to a four-year suspension, aligning with FIFA’s ADR. The decision reinforced the principle that international anti-doping standards must prevail to ensure fairness and uniformity. The case highlights the importance of adhering to higher regulatory frameworks in doping cases and the role of CAS in resolving disputes between international and confederate football bodies. The ruling underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping violations and the limited scope for reducing sanctions without compelling evidence of unintentional use.
The player claimed the ingestion was accidental, alleging he drank from a water bottle contaminated by his brother, but this explanation was deemed inconsistent with scientific evidence. Experts concluded the ingestion was performance-related, and the player failed to prove the violation was unintentional. The panel found his story implausible, noting contradictions in his testimony and lack of supporting evidence. Under FIFA ADR, the burden of proof was on the player to demonstrate no significant fault or negligence, which he failed to meet. The panel upheld the full four-year suspension, starting from the date of the sample collection, with credit given for time already served. All competitive results achieved by the player from the date of the sample collection were disqualified, including medals, points, and prizes.
The case also addressed jurisdictional issues, confirming CAS’s authority based on the statutes of both CONMEBOL and FIFA. The panel determined that FIFA’s appeal was admissible, as it was filed within the 21-day deadline stipulated by the regulations. The dispute highlighted the tension between confederation-specific rules and international governing bodies' authority in enforcing anti-doping standards. The panel concluded that FIFA’s ADR should prevail due to its status as a specialized regulation and its alignment with international standards, ensuring uniform enforcement across football. The decision underscores the need for clarity in regulatory hierarchies and uniform application of anti-doping measures.
Ultimately, the panel upheld the strict liability principle, emphasizing the importance of credible evidence in doping cases. The ruling serves as a reminder of the severe consequences of doping violations, including significant suspensions and the erasure of competitive achievements. The case reinforces the supremacy of FIFA’s ADR over CONMEBOL’s regulations, advocating for a harmonized approach to anti-doping sanctions in line with international standards. The decision ensures fairness and integrity in sports by maintaining consistent enforcement of anti-doping rules across all football players.