CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2007/A/1370 & CAS 2007/A/1376 — FIFA & WADA v. Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD) & Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) & Mr Ricardo Lucas Dodô

"Dodô" · CAS dismissed FIFA's application to provisionally suspend footballer Dodô pending appeal of his anti-doping acquittal.

What happened in Dodô

Brazilian footballer Ricardo Lucas Dodô was acquitted of an anti-doping rule violation by the STJD on 2 August 2007. FIFA appealed to CAS on 6 September 2007, simultaneously requesting provisional measures to suspend the player immediately from all football activities. WADA filed a parallel appeal on 11 September 2007. The two proceedings were consolidated by agreement of all parties and heard by a single panel. Before addressing provisional measures, the panel first resolved a jurisdictional challenge raised by the CBF, STJD, and the player himself, confirming jurisdiction on 6 December 2007. On the provisional measures application, the panel applied the three-part CAS test — irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits, and balance of convenience — and added a fourth consideration specific to anti-doping cases: the public interest in fighting doping. Despite acknowledging that factor, the panel dismissed FIFA's application, finding that FIFA had not demonstrated that the harm from refusing suspension outweighed the harm to the player from an unjustified provisional ban. The case matters because it articulates, in an anti-doping context, that the balance-of-convenience test must account for the individual athlete's interests and that a short delay in imposing a sanction does not undermine the integrity of anti-doping enforcement.

Procedural history of CAS 2007/A/1370

On 2 August 2007 the STJD acquitted Mr Ricardo Lucas Dodô of an anti-doping rule violation. FIFA filed a CAS appeal on 6 September 2007, including an application for provisional measures under Articles R37 and R48 of the CAS Code to suspend the player immediately. WADA filed a separate appeal against the same STJD decision on 11 September 2007. With all parties' agreement, the two cases were consolidated before a single panel. The CBF (13 September 2007) and STJD (17 September 2007) each contested CAS personal jurisdiction over themselves. The player (24 September 2007) requested a preliminary ruling on jurisdiction and opposed provisional measures. On 24 October 2007 the panel deferred the provisional measures question until jurisdiction was resolved. On 6 December 2007 the panel confirmed jurisdiction. The order on provisional measures was issued on 10 December 2007.

Key holdings in CAS 2007/A/1370

• When deciding whether to order provisional measures, a CAS panel must consider: (i) irreparable harm, (ii) likelihood of success on the merits, and (iii) balance of convenience, any one of which may be decisive on the facts.
• In anti-doping cases, the balance-of-convenience analysis must also incorporate the public interest in the fight against doping.
• A relatively short delay in imposing a sanction pending appeal does not lessen the punitive impact of that sanction and therefore does not harm the appellant's anti-doping stance.
• Each anti-doping case involving a footballer must be evaluated on its own merits under the principle of individual case management, so no single acquittal or denial of provisional suspension sends a wrong signal to the football world.
• FIFA failed to discharge its burden of demonstrating that the harm from refusing provisional measures would be greater than the harm the player would suffer from a provisional suspension followed by a final acquittal.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel applied the three-factor provisional measures test drawn from established CAS jurisprudence (CAS 2006/A/1088; CAS 2003/O/486; CAS 2002/A/378; CAS 2001/A/324; CAS OG 02/004). It added a fifth consideration specific to anti-doping: the public interest in combating doping. On the balance-of-convenience factor — which proved decisive — the panel weighed four specific considerations against FIFA's position: first, a relatively short delay before the final award would not diminish the punitive effect of any eventual sanction; second, the player as a professional athlete would suffer real harm from a provisional suspension that might ultimately prove unjustified; third, relying on FIFA's own principle of individual case management (CAS 2005/C/976 & 986), the panel rejected the argument that denying suspension would send a wrong signal to the football world; and fourth, significant time had already elapsed since the STJD's August 2007 decision while only a short period remained before the final award. The panel rejected FIFA's assertion that it could identify no legitimate interest on the respondents' side, finding instead that the player's interest in continuing his professional career pending a final decision was a weighty countervailing factor. FIFA was found not to have discharged its burden on either the irreparable harm or balance-of-convenience limbs.

Why Dodô matters in CAS jurisprudence

This order is a leading CAS authority on provisional measures in anti-doping football cases. It codifies the three-part test (irreparable harm, likelihood of success, balance of convenience) and expressly adds the public interest in fighting doping as a fourth element specific to anti-doping proceedings. Crucially, it establishes that even in doping cases the individual athlete's interest in continuing professional activity — and the risk of an unjustified suspension — can outweigh a governing body's institutional interest in immediate enforcement, particularly when the final award is imminent.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2006/A/1088 CAS 2003/O/486 CAS 2002/A/378 CAS 2001/A/324 CAS OG 02/004 CAS 2005/C/976 & 986

Frequently asked questions about Dodô

What test does CAS apply when deciding provisional measures in anti-doping football cases after Dodô?

The panel in Dodô confirmed that CAS applies three cumulative factors: irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits, and balance of convenience. It added a fourth element specific to anti-doping cases — the public interest in the fight against doping — which must be weighed within the balance-of-convenience analysis. Any single factor may be decisive on the facts of a particular case.

Why did CAS refuse to provisionally suspend Dodô even though FIFA argued doping sends a wrong signal?

The panel rejected FIFA's 'wrong signal' argument by invoking FIFA's own principle of individual case management (CAS 2005/C/976 & 986), holding that no single acquittal or denial of provisional suspension could send a wrong signal to the football world. It also found that a short delay before the final award would not lessen the punitive impact of any eventual sanction, and that the player would suffer real harm from a provisional ban that might prove unjustified.

How were the FIFA and WADA appeals against the STJD decision in the Dodô case handled procedurally?

FIFA filed its appeal on 6 September 2007 and WADA filed a separate appeal on 11 September 2007, both challenging the STJD's acquittal of 2 August 2007. With all parties' agreement the two proceedings were consolidated before a single panel. The panel deferred the provisional measures question until it resolved jurisdictional challenges raised by the CBF, STJD, and the player, confirming jurisdiction on 6 December 2007 and issuing the provisional measures order on 10 December 2007.

Does the Dodô order establish that a governing body's anti-doping interests always outweigh a player's interest in competing pending appeal?

No. The panel expressly held that FIFA failed to discharge its burden of showing that the harm from refusing provisional measures would be greater than the harm to the player from an unjustified provisional suspension. The order confirms that a professional athlete's interest in continuing his career is a weighty countervailing factor, and that the balance-of-convenience test requires genuine case-by-case weighing rather than an automatic preference for suspension.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.