Mamadou Sakho’s legal team has won the first round in the battle with UEFA over his recent playing ban. UEFA’s decision not to renew the initial provisional playing ban has opened the possibility of Sakho representing France at Euro 2016 this summer. Sakho and Liverpool were stymied from his participating in the recent Europa League final. For both player and club that was a costly enforcement of a draconian UEFA policy.
Mamadou Sakho Strikes Back
Sakho was initially tested after the away game versus Manchester United in the Europa League. Following on from a positive testing, Liverpool and Sakho agreed internally, not to have him available for selection pending a UEFA decision. He was then placed on a thirty day provisional ban from playing, which resulted in his missing several crucial league games and the Europa League final itself.
Of course the outcome of the final is in the record books at this point, with Sevilla triumphant on the night. However, thoughts from many Liverpool fans as to what might have been linger heavily. Sakho was providing dominant performances against the likes of Borussia Dortmund and Everton, some of the best from a Reds central defender in quite some time. What if he had lined up with Lovren in Basel? Could the outcome have swung in Liverpool’s favour? Liverpool would have been more solid defensively and offensively from set pieces with him than without him.
The case that Sakho faces is still not over. His legal team argued that the substance found after his test should not even be a banned product. This has won round one versus UEFA , with the governing body releasing the following statement:
“The 30-day provisional suspension ends today. The chairman of the control, ethics and disciplinary body decided not to extend it”.
Surely, it is time now for a review of UEFA proceedings and protocol, when a player tests positive for any substance that may be deemed a performance enhancer. Modern medications and vitamins/supplements have myriads of ingredients that can change and often do. While it is undoubtedly the player’s personal responsibility to check whatever he may be taking with his medical team, blanket automatic provisional bans are counter-productive.
A quick viewing of the UK Anti-Doping website shows that football players do not make up the bulk of offenders in sport overall. As a whole, football has historically had fewer performance enhancing scandals than many other sports. Cases of recreational drug taking are easy to solve, such as the case of frequent cocaine usage, against Adrian Mutu formerly of Chelsea. Cases involving medication or supplements are more of a grey area .
The case of Sakho may prove to be a watershed moment in the anti-doping procedures that UEFA follows. If he is finally exonerated, there could also be a possible lawsuit forthcoming against UEFA from the player himself. He is busily involved in local charity and community projects in the Liverpool area, and his reputation has taken quite a beating due to the investigation.
UEFA should now consider an innocent until proven guilty position in regards to cases of positive tests over which doubts have been cast. Players should be allowed to play on with a warning and mandatory regular testing until a formal investigation is completed. The immediate banning prior to a conclusion of an investigation is unfair both to the player and to the club that employs him. UEFA must learn from this case and reconfigure its anti-doping disciplinary protocols.
