Can football players delegate their anti-doping responsibilities to their club? The case of Shir Tzedek
Shir Tzedek is an Israeli professional football player for Hapoel Beer Sheva (the Player). On 22 August 2017, Tzedek played in a UEFA Champions League match against NK Maribor and was required to provide a urine sample for doping control purposes. One month later, on 22 September 2017, the Player was informed the prohibited substance Octopamine was detected in his urine sample. Octopamine is a specified stimulant and is only prohibited in-competition.
Subsequently, UEFA opened disciplinary proceedings against Tzedek for anti-doping rule violation, in accordance with the UEFA Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR). On 7 December 2017 UEFA's Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body (CEDB) decided to suspend him for a period of eight months (decision available here1 – see page 117).
This article reviews the proceedings before the CEDB, focusing on:
The Player's position;
The CEDB decision;
The scope of suspension under the ADR; and
Comments and observations.
Continue reading this article...
Already a member? Sign in
Get access to all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport including articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts. Find out more here.
- Tags: Anti-Doping | Ethics and Disciplinary Body | Football | Israel | UEFA | UEFA Anti-Doping Regulations | UEFA's Control
- Contaminated supplements and the 2015 WADA Code: the legal principles underlying UKAD v. Williams & Warburton
- A review of the CAS panel's decision to reduce Sharapova’s doping ban
- Tips for athletes when delegating their Prohibited List duties
- Key challenges facing athletes in contaminated supplement cases: A review of the Arijan Ademi decision