CAS 2018/A/5546, José Paolo Guerrero v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), CAS 2018/A/5571, World Anti-doping Agency (WADA) v. FIFA & José Paolo Guerrero, Award of 30 July 2018 (Operative Part of 14 May 2018)

Jacobs, Howard L.; Freeman, Katlin N.; Mojarras, Aaron M.

doi:10.1007/15757_2022_36

Howard L. Jacobs³,
Katlin N. Freeman³ &
Aaron M. Mojarras³

Part of the book series: Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration ((YISA))

112 Accesses

Abstract

Despite the fact that CAS declared in FIFA & WADA (CAS 2005/C/976 & 986) that all sanctions must comply with the principle of proportionality, CAS panels have been reluctant to engage in a proportionality assessment in individual cases. Panels have asserted a variety of rationales for their refusal to assess proportionality in individual cases: (i) former ECtHR Judge and President, Jean-Paul Costa’s assessment, in a legal opinion issued in 2013, that the (2015) WADA Code’s sanction regime as a whole is proportionate; (ii) that a proportionality assessment is unnecessary in individual cases because proportionality is “built in” to the WADA Code; (iii) that a proportionality analysis is only permissible in an individual case where there is a “gap or lacuna” in the WADA Code; (iv) that a proportionality analysis would nullify the sanction regime of the WADA Code; and (v) that a proportionality analysis would lead to a landslide of cases risking the “exceptional mutat[ing] into the norm.” In the case of José Paolo Guerrero, despite outlining a series of circumstances that suggested that the 14-month sanction imposed by CAS was disproportionate, the CAS Panel refused to actually rule on the issue of proportionality, citing many of the rationales outlined above. The authors submit that a proportionality analysis remains a legal necessity in individual anti-doping cases, and that Judge Costa’s opinion that the sanction regime in the 2015 WADA Code is generally proportionate does not and cannot amount to a declaration that the sanction regime in the 2015 WADA Code will result in a proportionate sanction in every individual case. Furthermore, the oft-cited fear that a proportionality analysis will nullify the WADA Code or lead to a “landslide” of cases where a proper proportionality analysis supersedes the WADA Code is a fallacy that is not supported by the lex sportive.

H. Jacobs, K. Freeman and A. Mojarras are attorneys at the Law Offices of Howard L. Jacobs, Westlake Village, CA USA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 109.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 139.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
CAS 2018/A/5546, Guerrero v. FIFA, and CAS 2018/A/5571, WADA v. FIFA, Award of 30 July 2018, paras 2, 6–8.
2.
Ibid., paras 8, 10.
3.
Ibid., paras 11–12.
4.
Ibid., para 14.
5.
Ibid., para. 15.
6.
Ibid., paras 20–21, 43.
7.
Ibid., para 22.
8.
Ibid., para 23.
9.
Ibid., para 24.
10.
Ibid.
11.
Ibid., para 25.
12.
Ibid., paras 25–28.
13.
Messrs Michael Beloff (President), Massimo Coccia and Jeffrey Benz.
14.
Ibid., para 38, 64.
15.
Ibid., para 70(i–iii).
16.
Ibid., para 70(ix–xi).
17.
CAS 2013/A/3327, Marin Cilic v. International Tennis Federation (ITF), and, CAS 2013/A/3337, ITF v. Marin Cilic, CAS Award of 11 April 2014.
18.
Ibid., para 81.
19.
Ibid., paras 80–82.
20.
Ibid., para 82.
21.
Ibid.
22.
Ibid., paras 83, 85.
23.
Ibid.
24.
Ibid., para 85(i–iv).
25.
Ibid., paras 86–87.
26.
Ibid., para 89.
27.
Ibid., paras 89–90.
28.
Ibid., paras 90–91.
29.
CAS 2016/A/4534, Fiol Villanueva v. FINA, Award of 16 March 2017; CAS 2017/A/5015, FIS v. Johaug & CAS 2017/A/5110, Johaug v. NIF, Award of 21 August 2017.
30.
“Legal opinion regarding the draft 3.0 revision of the World Anti-Doping Code”, 25 June 2013 (Jean-Paul Costa).
31.
Ibid., para 87 (quoting CAS 2017/A/5015& CAS 2017/A/5110, at para 227).
32.
Costa Opinion, Sections 3 and 5.
33.
Ibid., Section 5, pp. 6–7.
34.
Ibid., at p. 9.
35.
Ibid., at p. 7.
36.
Ibid., at p. 9.
37.
Ibid. at p. 8.
38.
Ibid.
39.
Ibid.
40.
Ibid.
41.
Ibid., paras 89–90.
42.
CAS 1996/56, Jessica Foschi v. FINA, Award of 6 October 1997, para 3.4.
43.
Ibid., at para 15.2.
44.
CAS 2001/A/337, B. v. FINA, Award of 22 March 2002, at para 72.
45.
Ibid., at para 78 (citing CAS 92/73, N. v. FEI, CAS Digest, Volume I, p. 153, 159; CAS 95/141, C v. FINA, CAS Digest, Volume I, pp. 215, 222; CAS 96/156, F. v. FINA, CAS Digest, Volume I, p. 48).
46.
Ibid.
47.
CAS 2005/C/976 & 986, FIFA & WADA, Advisory Opinion dated 21 April 2006, at paras 138–139.
48.
CAS 2005/A/830, Squizzato v. FINA, Award of 15 July 2005, at para 10.24.
49.
CAS 2006/A/1025, Puerta v. International Tennis Federation, Award of 12 July 2006, at p. 3.
50.
Ibid., at pp. 3–4.
51.
Ibid., at paras 90–95.
52.
Ibid., at para 103.
53.
See CAS 2014/A/3540, Klineman v. USADA, Award of 24 April 2014, at para 39.
54.
TAS 2007/A/1252, FINA v. Mellouli, Award of 11 September 2007, at para 97.
55.
CAS 2010/A/2268, Walilko v. Federation Internationale de l’Automobile, Award of 15 September 2011, at paras 133, 142.
56.
Ibid., at para 143.
57.
CAS A4/2016, Klein v. ASADA, Award of 25 May 2017.
58.
CAS 2020/O/6689, WADA v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency, Award of 17 December 2020, at para 493; WADA Code, Article 23.5.6.
59.
Ibid.; See also WADA Code Article 11.2.6.
60.
Ibid., p. 150, para 718.
61.
Ibid., at p. 151, paras 719, 723.
62.
Ibid., at p. 154, paras 742–744.
63.
Ibid., para 745.
64.
Ibid., at p. 180, paras 861–862.
65.
CAS 2018/A/5546, Guerrero v. FIFA, and CAS 2018/A/5571, WADA v. FIFA, Award of 30 July 2018, para 84.
66.
Ibid., at para 85.
67.
Ibid., at para 87.
68.
CAS 2005/A/830, Squizzato v. FINA, Award of 15 July 2005, at para 10.24.
69.
See, e.g., https://www.wada-ama.org/en/court-of-arbitration-for-sport.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Howard L. Jacobs, Westlake Village, CA, USA
Howard L. Jacobs, Katlin N. Freeman & Aaron M. Mojarras

Authors

Howard L. Jacobs
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Katlin N. Freeman
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Aaron M. Mojarras
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Howard L. Jacobs .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

ASSER International Sports Law Centre, T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands
Antoine Duval
Faculté de droit, Université de Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland
Antonio Rigozzi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jacobs, H.L., Freeman, K.N., Mojarras, A.M. (2022). CAS 2018/A/5546, José Paolo Guerrero v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), CAS 2018/A/5571, World Anti-doping Agency (WADA) v. FIFA & José Paolo Guerrero, Award of 30 July 2018 (Operative Part of 14 May 2018). In: Duval, A., Rigozzi, A. (eds) Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration 2018–2020. Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/15757_2022_36

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/15757_2022_36
Published: 28 May 2022
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-510-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-511-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics