We were recently rocked by the news that Paul Pogba has been suspended from playing football for 4 years after testing positive for doping. A sad end to a career for a world class midfielder.
It was detected that he had testosterone that was not produced by his body. These were later found to be ‘non-endogenous metabolites’, ‘Dehydroepiandrosterone’, drugs that provide a violation of articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the World Anti-Doping Agency code.
Pogba Denies
However, there remains the possibility that he could alleviate his punishment. Now, Pogba vehemently denies the truth behind the test findings; he denies having used banned substances. He could however look to other cases as hope that he will be able to diminish his sentence.
Simona Halep, the Wimbledon famed tennis player, managed to reduce her suspension from the sport from 4 years to 9 months, after appealing to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The large reason that she was successful, was down to what the court called the probable fact that her violations were not ‘intentional’.
Analysing the small dose of precedents in these cases highlight, that they hinge on intention. They aren’t as arbitrary as other sporting guidelines such as FFP breaches, which can lead footballing juries to impose whatever sentence they like.
The difference in Halep’s case
The difference in Halep’s case, is that she had Roxadustat in her body, which has been used to treat people suffering from anaemia. The issue is however that it stimulates red blood cell production and enhances endurance. Halep said that this entered her system through taking Keto MCT which was given to her by her coach. This gave the court the sentiment, that on the balance of probabilities, it was not an intentional violation.
Similarly with runner LaShawn Merritt
Similarly with runner LaShawn Merritt, who was found to have violated anti-doping rules in the same manner as Pogba but suggested that it entered his body accidentally through a substance he bought over the counter to enhance sexual performance. This made him go over the threshold and his suspension was then mitigated by 9 months as a result.
Pogba intends to appeal this ruling, and the burden is on him to prove it was unintentional, and the levels of the substance in his system were marginally over the threshold. These previous cases provide somewhat of a precedent for Pogba to utilise. As Michele Verroken argues, Pogba’s sentence could be reduced if he can ‘demonstrate the source, and that (he) took all reasonable care to avoid the use of prohibited substances’.
It seems to be that honesty, and providing a causal link for the violation, is the best way of mitigating disaster, and ensuring that Pogba has the opportunity to remain on the football world stage.