Еще одно доказательство произвола ВАДА
На этот раз это не мельдоний, но нахальство ВАДА то же самое, как и с мельдонием.
Liverpool's Mamadou Sakho facing fresh legal battle over doping verdict
Ben Rumsby
11 JULY 2016 • 10:30PM
An acrimonious legal battle between Mamadou Sakho and the World Anti-Doping Agency was looming on Monday night after the latter refused to rule out appealing against Uefa’s decision to clear the player of taking a banned substance.
Wada was facing being sued by Sakho and Liverpool over the extraordinary chain of events which led to the France defender being judged to have failed a drugs test and forced him to miss the Europa League final and European Championship.
On Friday Uefa’s control, ethics and disciplinary body absolved Sakho of taking a performance-enhancing substance after a near four-month battle by the player to clear his name.
However, Wada has the right of appeal and, asked whether it planned to exercise that right, a spokesman told Telegraph Sport: “We are awaiting the reasoned decision as it relates to this one.”
The agency may need to overturn the verdict if it is to avoid legal action over its handling of a saga which threatens to shatter confidence in its ability to lead the fight against drugs in sport.
Indeed, a source close to the case told Telegraph Sport that Wada must take “sole responsibility” for the events which culminated in Friday’s outcome. “The way in which Wada managed this case is absolutely unacceptable,” he added.
Telegraph Sport has been told by more than one source that proceedings against Sakho would not even have been opened – and would have been dropped much sooner – but for Wada, which insisted on a case being pursued despite mounting evidence any conviction would be unsafe.
The agency is said to have intervened almost from the very beginning, when Sakho tested positive for a substance called higenamine following the second leg of Liverpool’s Europa League tie against Manchester United on March 17.
The compound was included in a fat-burner Sakho had been taking, which had apparently been checked against Wada’s prohibited list to ensure it was legal.
The director of the Wada-accredited laboratory in Cologne which tested Sakho’s doping sample is said to have determined higenamine not to be a banned substance. But, after double-checking with Wada, he was told the agency deemed it to be something known as a beta2 agonist – a category of compounds which are prohibited – and was instructed to report a failed test.
This back and forth explains the month-long delay between the test taking place and Sakho being informed of the result on April 22, the day before Liverpool’s 2-2 Premier League draw against Newcastle United.
The news of the failed test leaked when Sakho was left out of the squad for that match during a four-day window for him to submit an explanation for the adverse finding.
Liverpool recommended Sakho employ one of the world’s leading anti-doping lawyers, Mike Morgan, who is said to have helped the player file a request to be provisionally suspended for 30 days – something he had to do for any subsequent ban to be backdated to the date of the failed test.
Morgan is also said to have begun looking into higenamine and to have discovered the science that could reasonably lead Wada to class it as a beta2 agonist was far from robust.
An application for the case to be dismissed on that basis was filed to Uefa just after the Europa League final and shortly before Sakho’s provisional ban was due to expire. Uefa chose not to extend the suspension while it made inquiries about higenamine, which it learnt to its horror not all Wada-accredited labs even test for – with that in Cologne being perhaps one of only two which do.
Its disciplinary body was also told by the lab director he had not considered higenamine a doping substance until instructed to report it as such by Wada.
In the meantime, the doctor of the France national team contacted Uefa to ascertain the status of Sakho with a view to him being selected for their Euro 2016 squad.
Although Uefa replied they were free to pick the 26-year-old following the expiry of his provisional suspension, the French Football Federation ultimately decided not to risk doing so with a case still open against him.
Last week, Uefa’s disciplinary body finally concluded the evidence for higenamine being a banned substance did not stand up to scrutiny.
And although Wada may still seek to argue otherwise, its handling of a case it was unable to convince Uefa to prosecute is another hammer blow – following its humiliating retreat over meldonium – to its credibility as the supreme authority on doping.
With Sakho and Liverpool understood to have not ruled out legal action, it is a failure that could prove very costly indeed.
>
