CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11815 — Boris Cespedes v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

"Cespedes" · CAS reduced a Bolivian footballer's two-year doping ban to 15 months after finding he established the source of acetazolamide through altitude sickness medication prescribed by FBF medical staff.

What happened in Cespedes

Boris Cespedes, a Bolivian professional footballer playing for Yverdon-Sport FC in the Swiss Super League, tested positive for acetazolamide (a Specified Substance, category S5 diuretics and masking agents) following an in-competition doping control on 25 March 2025 after a FIFA World Cup 2026 qualifier in Bolivia. He claimed the substance entered his system through altitude sickness medication prescribed by the FBF team doctor, Dr Francisco Javier Gomez Menacho, while he was severely ill with gastroenteritis at altitude. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee imposed a two-year period of ineligibility on 7 August 2025, finding he had not established the source of the prohibited substance with sufficient clarity and bore significant fault. Cespedes appealed to CAS seeking a reduction to no more than six months. The Sole Arbitrator admitted a late-filed RTS television broadcast in which Dr Gomez Menacho admitted prescribing a prohibited substance, finding exceptional circumstances under Article R56 CAS Code. Applying the 'narrow corridor' doctrine, probatio diabolica principles, and a duty-of-cooperation analysis, the Sole Arbitrator found the source established on the balance of probabilities. Applying the Cilic/Errani fault framework as adapted in CAS 2020/A/6852, he found 'normal' (not 'light') fault due to the Appellant's complete delegation of his DCF declaration, reducing the ban to 15 months with credit for provisional suspension from 14 May 2025. The case matters because it applies probatio diabolica and duty-of-cooperation doctrine to hold FIFA's failure to investigate FBF medical staff against it in the fault assessment.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11815

On 25 March 2025, Cespedes provided a urine sample following a Bolivia-Uruguay FIFA World Cup 2026 qualifier. On 10 April 2025, the WADA-accredited laboratory in Cologne reported an Adverse Analytical Finding for acetazolamide. The B Sample confirmed the result on 14 May 2025, and the Player voluntarily entered provisional suspension that same day. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee held a hearing on 7 August 2025 and issued its decision imposing a two-year period of ineligibility, with grounds communicated on 17 September 2025. The Player filed his Statement of Appeal with CAS on 3 October 2025, within the 21-day deadline under Article 50.1 of the FIFA Statutes. The CAS registered the appeal on 6 October 2025. The Division President ordered English as the language of proceedings on 28 October 2025. FIFA filed its Answer on 8 December 2025. An oral hearing was conducted via videoconference on 15 January 2026. The Sole Arbitrator admitted a late-filed RTS television broadcast as exceptional circumstances under Article R56 CAS Code. The award was rendered on 8 June 2026.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11815

• The presence of acetazolamide in the Appellant's urine sample constitutes an ADRV under Article 6 FADR on a strict liability basis, regardless of intent.
• The Appellant narrowly established on the balance of probabilities that the acetazolamide entered his system through altitude sickness medication prescribed by FBF medical staff during 21–24 March 2025, applying the 'narrow corridor' doctrine and probatio diabolica principles from CAS 2019/A/6313 and CAS 2021/A/7768.
• FIFA's failure to exercise its regulatory authority over the FBF to investigate the prescription of a prohibited substance to a national team player is taken into account in assessing whether the Appellant met the applicable standard of proof, making that assessment more lenient toward the Appellant.
• The Appellant bears no significant fault or negligence within the meaning of Article 23 FADR, but his degree of fault is 'normal' on the Cilic/Errani scale because he completely delegated his DCF declaration to the team doctor and failed to review the form before signing it.
• Career-ending consequences, economic harm, psychological harm, and personality rights arguments under Article 28 SCC do not warrant a further reduction of the period of ineligibility, as such factors are explicitly excluded by the FADR.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first assessed the source of the prohibited substance by examining the totality of circumstantial evidence: the Appellant's credible hearing testimony, WhatsApp messages referencing Punacap (a medication known to contain acetazolamide), recorded telephone conversations in which Dr Gomez Menacho and team manager Carlos Pino attributed the prescription to FBF doctors, and the RTS broadcast in which Dr Gomez Menacho admitted prescribing a prohibited substance. Applying the 'narrow corridor' doctrine from CAS 2019/A/6313 and the duty-of-cooperation principle from CAS 2021/A/7768 (citing ATF 106 II 29 and ATF 119 II 305), the Sole Arbitrator held that requiring formal medical documentation that was never created or lies within uncooperative third parties' control would impose a probatio diabolica. He further found that FIFA, which has direct regulatory authority over the FBF, failed to investigate despite concerning evidence, and weighed this asymmetry in the Appellant's favor. On fault, the Sole Arbitrator applied the Cilic/Errani framework as adapted in CAS 2020/A/6852, distinguishing 'normal' fault (12–24 months, standard 18 months) from 'light' fault (0–12 months, standard 6 months). He rejected 'light' fault because the Appellant completely delegated his DCF declaration—a core personal anti-doping responsibility—and failed to review the form before signing, despite being well enough to provide a urine sample. Genuine illness and altitude sickness were accepted as mitigating subjective factors, placing the case in the middle of the lower half of the 'normal' range, yielding 15 months.

Why Cespedes matters in CAS jurisprudence

Cespedes is a significant application of the probatio diabolica and 'narrow corridor' doctrines in a football doping context, establishing that a governing body's failure to use its regulatory authority to investigate a member association's medical staff can be weighed against it when assessing an athlete's evidentiary burden. The award also reinforces that complete delegation of the Doping Control Form declaration constitutes a concrete, identifiable omission that precludes a finding of 'light' fault even where genuine illness is established.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2016/A/4534 CAS 2019/A/6313 CAS 2021/A/7768 CAS 2011/A/2384 & 2386 CAS 2020/A/6852 CAS 2013/A/3327 & 3335

Frequently asked questions about Cespedes

What substance did Boris Cespedes test positive for and why was it prohibited?

Cespedes tested positive for acetazolamide, a Specified Substance classified under category S5 (diuretics and masking agents) of the 2025 World Anti-Doping Code Prohibited List, prohibited at all times. The WADA-accredited laboratory in Cologne reported the Adverse Analytical Finding on 10 April 2025 from a urine sample collected on 25 March 2025, and the B Sample confirmed the result on 14 May 2025.

How did the Cespedes CAS panel handle the late-filed RTS television broadcast evidence?

The Sole Arbitrator admitted the RTS 'Sport Dimanche' broadcast under Article R56 of the CAS Code as an exceptional circumstance, finding that the specific broadcast — produced by independent RTS journalists who called Dr Gomez Menacho themselves — was not within the Appellant's control prior to its airing on 11 January 2026, and that the request was filed promptly within approximately 24 hours. The admission was without prejudice to the weight accorded to it, and FIFA's objections regarding hearsay, inability to cross-examine, and lack of specific substance identification were noted and factored into the merits assessment.

Why was Cespedes's ban reduced from two years to 15 months rather than the six months he requested?

The Sole Arbitrator found the Appellant's fault was 'normal' rather than 'light' on the Cilic/Errani scale as adapted in CAS 2020/A/6852, because Cespedes completely delegated his Doping Control Form declaration to the team doctor and failed to review the DCF before signing it — a core personal anti-doping responsibility that cannot be devolved. While his genuine gastroenteritis and altitude sickness (at 3,650 to 4,100 meters) were accepted as real mitigating factors placing the case in the middle of the lower half of the 'normal' range (12–24 months), they were substantially offset by this omission, yielding 15 months rather than the six months sought.

What is the significance of the Cespedes case for the probatio diabolica doctrine in CAS anti-doping proceedings?

The award applies the probatio diabolica doctrine from CAS 2019/A/6313 and CAS 2021/A/7768 to hold that requiring an athlete to produce formal medical documentation that was never created or lies exclusively within uncooperative third parties' control would impose an impossible burden of proof. Critically, the Sole Arbitrator extended this analysis to FIFA itself, finding that FIFA's failure to use its direct regulatory authority over the FBF to investigate the prescription of a prohibited substance to a national team player — despite concerning evidence — was taken into account in making the evidentiary assessment more lenient toward the Appellant, consistent with the duty-of-cooperation principle derived from ATF 106 II 29 and ATF 119 II 305.

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.