CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10473 — Gabriel Barbosa Almeida v. União Federal do Brasil & Autoridade Brasileira de Controle de Dopagem (ABCD)

"Gabigol" · CAS examined whether Brazilian footballer Gabriel Barbosa's uncooperative conduct during an out-of-competition doping test constituted tampering or attempted tampering under Article 122 CBA/Article 2.5 WADC.

Award date	Not explicitly stated as a single date in the provided text (proceedings concluded after hearing on 3-4 April 2025)
Panel	President: Prof. Luigi Fumagalli (Milan, Italy); Arbitrators: Mr Jeffrey G. Benz (Los Angeles/London) and Prof. Ulrich Haas (Zurich/Hamburg)
Outcome	Award not fully reproduced in the provided text; the panel conducted a full de novo review and the hearing concluded on 4 April 2025, with the 24-month suspension stayed pending the final award. The BADT's Appealed Decision imposed a 24-month suspension backdated to 8 April 2023 (expiring 7 April 2025).
Provisions	Art. 122 CBA (Art. 2.5 WADC) – Tampering or Attempted Tampering with Doping Control Art. 120 CBA (Art. 2.3 WADC) – Failure to Submit to Sample Collection Art. 3 WADC – Proof of Doping (burden and standard of proof) Art. 23.2.2 WADC – Mandatory provisions Art. 163(2) CBA – Substantial delay and start date of ineligibility Art. 236 CBA – Sanction range for tampering Art. 292 CBA – Evidence in anti-doping proceedings Art. 295 CBA – Standard of proof (comfortable satisfaction) Art. 296 CBA – Presumption of veracity of DCO reports (contested) Art. 297 CBA – Deviations from collection standards Art. 317 CBA – Scope of appeal Art. 318 CBA – Forum for appeal Art. 331 CBA – CAS jurisdiction Art. 324 CBA – Time limit for CAS appeal Art. 348 CBA – WADC comments incorporated by reference Art. R47 CAS Code – Basis for appeal Art. R51 CAS Code – Appeal Brief Art. R57 CAS Code – Full power of review Art. R58 CAS Code – Applicable law Art. R36 CAS Code – Replacement of arbitrators Art. R53 CAS Code – Nomination of arbitrator Art. R54 CAS Code – Constitution of panel ISTI 2023 – International Standard for Testing and Investigations

What happened in Gabigol

Gabriel Barbosa Almeida ('Gabigol'), a Brazilian international footballer playing for Clube de Regatas do Flamengo, underwent an out-of-competition doping test on 8 April 2023 conducted by the ABCD at the club's training facility. His samples tested negative for prohibited substances, but doping control officers filed supplementary reports describing a pattern of uncooperative, disrespectful, and obstructive behaviour: failing to present himself before training, going to lunch without escort after training, making chaperoning difficult, mishandling the urine collection vessel, and declaring the test would be his last. The ABCD charged him with tampering under Article 122 of the Brazilian Anti-Doping Code (CBA), corresponding to Article 2.5 WADC. The Brazilian Anti-Doping Tribunal (BADT) found him guilty by a 5-4 majority and imposed a 24-month suspension backdated to 8 April 2023. Barbosa appealed to CAS, which stayed the suspension. The case raised key questions about the evidentiary weight of DCO reports, the standard of proof under the WADC, and the threshold of conduct required to constitute 'tampering' versus mere rudeness or non-cooperation. The panel conducted a full de novo review under Article R57 CAS Code, heard live witness testimony in Rio de Janeiro, and examined extensive video and documentary evidence. The case is significant for clarifying that DCO reports do not enjoy a presumption of veracity overriding WADC Article 3 burden-of-proof rules, and for defining the threshold between discourteous conduct and actionable tampering.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10473

On 8 April 2023, ABCD conducted an out-of-competition test on Flamengo players. DCOs filed supplementary reports alleging obstruction by the Athlete. On 30 May 2023, ABCD issued a Notice of Charge for tampering under Article 122 CBA. The Athlete rejected a proposed 3-year suspension. On 29 August 2023, the matter was referred to the Brazilian Anti-Doping Tribunal (BADT). On 21 December 2023, the Anti-Doping Prosecutor filed a claim before the BADT. A hearing was held on 18 and 25 March 2024. On 28 March 2024, the BADT issued its decision (dated 25 March 2024), finding the Athlete guilty by a 5-4 majority and imposing a 24-month suspension backdated to 8 April 2023. On 2 April 2024, the Athlete filed an appeal with CAS under Article R47 CAS Code. A first panel was constituted but two members resigned following notification irregularities concerning the First Respondent. A new panel was constituted on 9 October 2024. The suspension was stayed by orders of 30 April 2024 and 15 January 2025. A hearing was held in Rio de Janeiro on 3-4 April 2025.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10473

DCO reports do not enjoy a presumption of veracity that overrides the mandatory burden-of-proof rules in Article 3 WADC; ABCD bears the burden of proving an ADRV to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel, and any contrary provision of the CBA cannot override this mandatory WADC principle.
Tampering under Article 2.5 WADC/Article 122 CBA requires intentional conduct that subverts the doping control process in a tangible and meaningful way; offensive or discourteous conduct toward DCOs that does not otherwise constitute tampering must be addressed under disciplinary rules of sports organisations, not anti-doping rules.
A cumulative pattern of uncooperative behaviour may be assessed holistically to determine whether, taken together, the acts constitute a substantial step toward tampering, even if no single act alone would suffice.
The WADC's mandatory provisions, including Article 3 on proof of doping, prevail over any conflicting national anti-doping code provisions, including provisions of the CBA purporting to grant DCO reports enhanced evidentiary status.
CAS panels exercising de novo review under Article R57 CAS Code may recharacterise the legal basis of a violation (e.g., from Article 122/Art. 2.5 WADC to Article 120/Art. 2.3 WADC) where the facts support an alternative charge.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel first resolved the evidentiary threshold dispute, rejecting the First Respondent's argument that DCO reports enjoy a presumption of veracity under Article 296 CBA that shifts the burden to the Athlete to disprove facts beyond reasonable doubt. The panel held that Article 3 WADC is a mandatory provision under Article 23.2.2 WADC and prevails over any conflicting CBA rule; ABCD must prove the violation to comfortable satisfaction. The panel then examined the meaning of 'Tampering' and 'Attempted Tampering' under Article 2.5 WADC/Article 122 CBA, reviewing CAS jurisprudence (CAS 2008/A/1572, 1632 & 1659; CAS 2008/A/1718 & 1724; CAS 2015/A/4128; CAS 2016/A/4700; CAS 2017/A/4937; CAS 2017/A/5142; CAS 2018/A/6047) to establish that tampering requires a significant and intentional effort to manipulate the anti-doping process in a way that compromises its integrity. The WADC comment to Article 2.5 expressly states that offensive conduct toward a DCO that does not otherwise constitute tampering is to be addressed under disciplinary rules, not anti-doping rules. The panel weighed the DCOs' accounts against the Athlete's evidence, including security camera footage, witness testimony from Dr Tannure and Mr Machado, and noted material inconsistencies in the DCOs' statements. The panel considered whether the Athlete's conduct—failing to present before training, going to lunch, mishandling the collection vessel, and making disrespectful comments—individually or cumulatively crossed the threshold for tampering or, alternatively, failure to submit under Article 120 CBA/Article 2.3 WADC.

Why Gabigol matters in CAS jurisprudence

This case is significant for CAS anti-doping jurisprudence in three respects: it confirms that WADC Article 3 mandatory burden-of-proof rules override any national code provision purporting to grant DCO reports a presumption of veracity; it reinforces the high threshold required for 'tampering' under Article 2.5 WADC, distinguishing discourteous or uncooperative conduct from actionable interference; and it illustrates CAS's willingness to recharacterise violations de novo under Article R57, potentially reclassifying tampering as failure to submit under Article 2.3 WADC.

Decision: Award not fully reproduced in the provided text; the panel conducted a full de novo review and the hearing concluded on 4 April 2025, with the 24-month suspension stayed pending the final award. The BADT's Appealed Decision imposed a 24-month suspension backdated to 8 April 2023 (expiring 7 April 2025).

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2008/A/1572, 1632 & 1659 CAS 2008/A/1718 & 1724 CAS 2015/A/4128 CAS 2016/A/4700 CAS 2017/A/4937 CAS 2017/A/5142

Frequently asked questions about Gabigol

What did Gabigol actually do during the April 2023 doping test that led to his suspension?

On 8 April 2023, DCOs conducting an out-of-competition test at Flamengo's training centre reported that Barbosa failed to present himself before training, went to lunch without escort after training, made chaperoning difficult, mishandled the urine collection vessel by leaving it open and unattended on a table, and declared the test would be his last. His samples tested negative for all prohibited substances. The BADT found these cumulative acts constituted attempted tampering under Article 122 of the Brazilian Anti-Doping Code.

What was the sanction imposed on Gabigol and when did it start?

The Brazilian Anti-Doping Tribunal (BADT) imposed a 24-month suspension by a 5-4 majority vote in its decision dated 25 March 2024. The suspension was backdated to the date of sample collection, 8 April 2023, meaning it was set to expire on 7 April 2025. CAS stayed the suspension on 30 April 2024, confirmed by a further order on 15 January 2025, pending the final CAS award.

Did the CAS panel agree that DCO reports have a presumption of veracity in Brazilian anti-doping cases?

No. The panel expressly rejected the First Respondent's argument that Article 296 of the Brazilian Anti-Doping Code (CBA) grants DCO reports a presumption of veracity that shifts the burden to the athlete to disprove facts beyond reasonable doubt. The panel held that Article 3 WADC is a mandatory provision under Article 23.2.2 WADC and prevails over any conflicting CBA rule, meaning ABCD retains the burden of proving the violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel, and the athlete may rebut DCO reports on a balance of probability.

Could Gabigol's conduct be reclassified as failure to submit to doping control rather than tampering?

Yes. Both respondents argued, and the panel accepted it had jurisdiction under Article R57 CAS Code to consider, whether the Athlete's conduct could be recharacterised as a violation of Article 120 CBA (Article 2.3 WADC — failure to submit to sample collection) rather than Article 122 CBA (Article 2.5 WADC — tampering), citing CAS 2020/A/7526 as authority for such reclassification. The Appellant himself conceded at the hearing that the panel was entitled to review his conduct under Article 120 CBA as well.

Go deeper than the digest

Ask LexXi how this award has been applied since, compare it with related jurisprudence across 14,200+ indexed FIFA & CAS documents, and get answers with verified citations.

Ask LexXi about Gabigol — free

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.