Pogba case, plea bargain idea: the counter-analyses and the agreement

Paul Pogba has until midnight today to request counter-analysis on the B sample of his urine in which traces of testosterone were found in the first test carried out by the anti-doping laboratory in Rome. Nobody imagines sensational reversals of the first “non-negativity” verdict; case studies tell us that it is an eventuality bordering on the impossible. The French number 10 of Juventus and his entourage could decide to give up. Without exaggerating its significance, Paul’s gesture would also be a demonstration of consideration towards the system and its functioning.

After the outcome of the counter-analysis, the judicial-sports front will open. What will Pogba do? A telegraphic admission of guilt seasoned with the decisive underlining of “non-intentionality”? Will he offer a plea deal? Or will he choose the legal battle in Italy and at the Tas? The player will soon be questioned and at that point his defensive line will be better understood. The risks are known: violation means a 4-year sentence. If you prove that the intake was not intentional, you can start from 2. Furthermore, let’s face it, the penalties for footballers, even in terms of doping, have not been particularly severe over the years. There is always some mitigating factor at hand. But going all the way, that is, relying only on precedents, would expose the Frenchman to various risks. Testosterone is not the metabolite clostebol, where there has been on several occasions the justification of the healing ointment. If the first internal admissions (the comparison with Juventus) were confirmed, the thesis of the contaminated supplement would also fall. For this reason, the defense could try a negotiating route.

So let’s try to decipher the possible scenarios. The prosecutor’s investigation highlights doping and Pogba finds himself dealing with a referral that tells him: you intentionally violated the code for this, this and that, we want to disqualify you for four years. At that point, the world champion could take refuge in the rule on “timely admission” and “acceptance of the sanction”. It would be enough for him to say “yes, I did it”, and there would be a reduction of one year. But that would become a three disqualification. Because the rule is triggered only in the event of a request for sanctions from 4 years onwards. For Pogba, at 30 and a half years old, a three-year break would probably be fatal for the continuation of his career.

Plea bargain

—

Another matter is the “agreement for the settlement of the case”, in fact a plea bargain. In this case, the initiative must always start from the athlete, the path would be different because a simple admission would not be enough. “In this request, the factual elements underlying the violation must be expressly indicated, accurately and truthfully – it is said in the Sports Anti-Doping Regulations, not limiting it to a mere admission of responsibility”. At that point the ball would pass to the national anti-doping prosecutor’s office and Wada. Even in that case, however, from what threshold would the “negotiation” begin? The penalty discount could not be more than 50 percent of the disqualification proposal formulated by the anti-doping prosecutor’s office. But starting from two years, the halving would lead to just one year of disqualification. The problem is that Pogba will have to convince the anti-doping prosecutor Pierfilippo Laviani of the “non-intentionality”. And it’s not an obvious step.

The Tas

—

In the event of a legal clash, the match would be played on different fields. That of Italian sports justice, the National Anti-Doping Tribunal, or the international sphere. That is, the Tas (Tribunal of Arbitration for Sport), during the appeal. In theory, if Nado Italia and Wada agreed to the Tas, Pogba could go there immediately in a single hearing provided for by the procedures. But regardless of where the game will be played, what remains is how it will be played. I mean, what will Pogba’s defense be?