Paul Pogba's DHEA Ban: From Four Years to 18 Months on Appeal

Timeline

1. Aug 20, 2023Pogba, an unused substitute, is randomly tested after Juventus's 3–0 win at Udinese.
2. Sep 11, 2023Italy's national anti-doping tribunal provisionally suspends him after finding non-endogenous testosterone metabolites.
3. Oct 2023The B sample confirms the finding; the anti-doping prosecutor seeks a four-year ban.
4. Feb 28, 2024The NADO Italia tribunal bans Pogba for four years from September 11, 2023, and fines him €5,000.
5. Oct 4–7, 2024CAS reduces the ban to 18 months, cancels the fine and explains that the ingestion was not intentional.
6. Nov 15, 2024Juventus and Pogba announce the mutual termination of his contract, effective November 30.
7. Mar 2025Pogba becomes eligible to play again.
8. Jun 28, 2025Pogba signs a two-year contract with Monaco.
9. Nov 22, 2025Pogba makes his Monaco debut as an 85th-minute substitute at Rennes, his first competitive match since September 2023.

The ethical issues

• Strict liability vs. fault: Pogba was responsible for the substance even though a doctor prescribed it.
• Intent vs. recklessness: the difference between a four-year and an 18-month ban turned on whether his conduct was intentional or merely careless.
• Reliance on outside medical providers: elite athletes seeking treatment outside club medical structures.
• Proportionality and careers: a long ban for a player in his 30s may effectively end a career.
• Club responsibility: what clubs owe players in medical oversight, and what players owe clubs.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Paul Pogba	His career, reputation and income.
Juventus	Squad planning, contract value and reputation.
NADO Italia	Strict enforcement and deterrence.
WADA and the anti-doping system	Consistent application of the Code.
Teammates and opponents	Clean competition.
Fans and young players	Role models and trust in the sport.
Medical practitioners treating athletes	Clear standards on anti-doping obligations.

The case

Paul Pogba did not play a minute in Juventus’s opening match of the 2023–24 Serie A season. He sat on the bench in Udine as his team won 3–0. But he was randomly selected for a post-match drug test, and that sample put his career on hold for 18 months.^[2]

Background

Pogba, a France international, was one of the best-known midfielders in the world. He had won Serie A in each of his first four seasons at Juventus, returned to Manchester United for a then world-record £89 million in 2016, and scored in the 2018 World Cup final. He earned 91 caps for France.^[5]

He rejoined Juventus on a free transfer and a four-year contract in July 2022, but injuries limited him badly. He missed the 2022 World Cup, and in the 2022–23 season he played a total of 162 minutes across all competitions. At the time of his suspension he had played 51 minutes as a substitute in the new season.^[2]

The rules and governance

Doping cases in Italian football are handled by the Italian National Anti-Doping Agency (NADO Italia) and its national anti-doping tribunal, applying rules based on the World Anti-Doping Code. Anti-doping violations are strict liability offenses, as Pogba himself later acknowledged: the presence of a prohibited substance is enough, whatever the athlete intended. Intent and fault matter for the length of the sanction. When he was first suspended, Pogba faced a ban of between two and four years, and the central dispute in his case became whether his violation was intentional or the result of carelessness.^[1][2][3]

Appeals from the tribunal go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne. Its decisions are final and binding, subject only to an appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal within 30 days on limited grounds.^[1]

The positive test and the first ban

On September 11, 2023, NADO Italia’s tribunal provisionally suspended Pogba. It said the sample from August 20 showed “non-endogenous testosterone metabolites,” with results “consistent with the exogenous origin of the target compounds.” Juventus confirmed the suspension and said it “reserves the right to consider the next procedural steps.” Pogba’s agent said that “Paul Pogba never wanted to break a rule.”^[2]

A second sample confirmed the result in October 2023, and the anti-doping prosecutor sought a four-year ban.^[3] On February 28, 2024, the tribunal imposed it, running from September 11, 2023, along with a €5,000 fine. The substance was identified as DHEA (dehydroepiandrosterone), which WADA classifies under non-endogenous testosterone metabolites.^[1]

DHEA is a steroid hormone the body makes naturally and a precursor of testosterone. It is prohibited at all times, in and out of competition, as an anabolic agent on WADA’s Prohibited List. The United States is an outlier: almost everywhere else DHEA is treated as a controlled anabolic steroid, but in the U.S. it is exempt from the Controlled Substances Act and allowed in over-the-counter dietary supplements. USADA calls it “by far the most common prohibited anabolic agent found in dietary supplements” and warns that it remains prohibited “even if it is prescribed by a doctor.”^[6] That gap mattered in Pogba’s case, because his defense rested on a supplement prescribed by a doctor in Florida.^[1]

The appeal

Pogba appealed to CAS. He did not claim to be without fault. Instead, he asked for a 12-month ban “in recognition of the presence of some fault on his part.” His case was that he had erroneously taken a supplement prescribed by a medical doctor in Florida, after receiving assurances that the doctor, “who had claimed to treat several high level US and international athletes, was knowledgeable and would be mindful of Mr Pogba’s anti-doping obligations.” Several experts supported him, and CAS noted that much of his evidence was unopposed. NADO Italia argued that “the Player’s recklessness was serious and justified a 4-year ban.”^[1]

CAS announced its decision in early October 2024, and released its explanation on October 7. The panel accepted that the ingestion “was not intentional,” partially upheld the appeal and reduced the ban to 18 months from September 11, 2023, cancelling the fine. But it found that Pogba “was not without fault and that, as a professional football player, he should have paid a greater care in the circumstances.”^[1][3] According to BBC Sport’s report of the final award, the ruling also stated that DHEA only has an effect on females.^[5]

“Finally the nightmare is over,” Pogba said. “I play with integrity and, although I must accept that this is a strict liability offence, I want to place on record my thanks to the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s judges who heard my explanation. This has been a hugely distressing period in my life because everything I have worked so hard for has been put on hold.”^[3]

How the numbers worked

The figures in the case follow the arithmetic of the World Anti-Doping Code. Under Article 10.2.1, the standard ban for a presence violation is four years where the substance is not a “Specified Substance,” unless the athlete can establish that the violation was not intentional. If that article does not apply, Article 10.2.2 sets the ban at two years. The Code defines “intentional” narrowly. It covers athletes who knew their conduct was a violation, or who knew there was a significant risk that it was and “manifestly disregarded that risk.” A commentary note adds that it is “highly unlikely” an athlete will prove a lack of intent without showing how the substance entered their system.^[9]

A second step can shorten the ban further. Under Article 10.6.2, an athlete who establishes “No Significant Fault or Negligence” may have the ban reduced according to their degree of fault. However, the reduced ban “may not be less than one-half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable.”^[9] Pogba’s request for 12 months was therefore the lowest sanction available to him once intent was ruled out, short of a finding of no fault at all, which he did not seek.^[1]

According to a summary of the reasoned award (CAS 2024/A/10443 Paul Pogba v. NADO Italia), the panel worked through both steps. It concluded that the violation was not intentional, so the maximum ban was two years. It then considered the fault-based reductions and settled on 18 months, based on no significant fault or negligence. Having reached that point, it found “no room for any ancillary penalty,” which is why the €5,000 fine was quashed.^[10] The result placed Pogba midway between his own position and the two-year ceiling. He had shown the supplement’s source and avoided a finding of intent, but he had not done enough to earn the maximum reduction.^[1][10]

Aftermath

On November 15, 2024, Juventus and Pogba announced a mutual agreement to terminate his contract as of November 30.^[4] He became eligible to play again in March 2025 and, on June 28, 2025, signed a two-year contract with Monaco, breaking down in tears at the announcement. He was 32.^[3][5]

An ankle injury delayed his debut.^[8] He finally returned on November 22, 2025, coming on in the 85th minute of a 4–1 defeat at Rennes. According to Monaco, it was his first competitive match in 811 days, since a Serie A game against Empoli on September 3, 2023.^[7] He was met with a standing ovation. “I’m relieved to be playing football again, the thing I love most in the world,” he said, adding: “since I knew I had done nothing wrong and it was not my fault, I never lost hope.”^[8] The CAS panel, by contrast, had found that he was “not without fault.”^[1]

The core dilemma

Pogba trusted a doctor who said he understood anti-doping rules. CAS believed him, and still found him at fault. The case asks how much responsibility an elite athlete must bear for medical advice, whether strict liability is fair when a professional relies on a professional, and whether a sanction can be proportionate when it consumes 18 months of a short career.

Competing values

• Personal responsibility vs. reasonable reliance: athletes are told to consult doctors, then held liable for what doctors give them.
• Deterrence vs. proportionality: four years might have ended his top-level career; 18 months still coincided with the end of his Juventus contract.
• Individual autonomy vs. institutional oversight: players may seek outside treatment, but clubs bear the consequences.
• Speed vs. thoroughness: a careful process took more than a year, during which the player could not work.

Strongest arguments

For the reduced sanction: CAS heard expert evidence, much of it unopposed, that the ingestion was unintentional. A four-year ban, designed for deliberate cheats, would have been disproportionate for a player misled by a doctor.

For a stricter view: Pogba is a wealthy professional with access to his club’s medical staff and anti-doping advice. Taking a supplement from an outside doctor without independent checking is exactly the kind of carelessness strict liability is meant to deter. NADO Italia called it serious recklessness.

For a lighter view: Pogba sought only 12 months, accepting some fault. If he did everything a reasonable person might do short of independently testing the product, 18 months may still be harsh.

Applying the frameworks

Justice & fairness

A justice lens asks whether the sanction matches the wrong. The Code’s graded structure, with four years for intentional doping and less for careless ingestion, aims at proportionality. Behind a veil of ignorance, athletes would likely accept strict liability but want fault assessed fairly. The open question is where reasonable reliance ends and negligence begins.

Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics asks what a conscientious professional would do. Prudence, not merely good intentions, is a virtue: a player with Pogba’s resources could have run the supplement past club doctors or anti-doping experts. CAS’s comment that he “should have paid a greater care” is essentially a judgment about prudence.

Care ethics

Care ethics looks at relationships and responsibilities. A doctor who claims to treat elite athletes owes them particular care. A club owes its players medical oversight. Pogba’s case shows how gaps in those relationships, between club and outside doctor, and between player and club, can leave an athlete exposed.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You are Juventus’s head of medicine in 2023, learning that a senior player has been seeing an outside doctor abroad. Stakeholders include the player, the club, teammates, NADO Italia and fans. The codes in play are the World Anti-Doping Code, Italian anti-doping rules and the club’s medical policies.
2. Gather facts. What treatment did the outside doctor provide? Were any products checked against the Prohibited List? What did the player disclose to club staff? Avoid assuming that a famous doctor’s assurances are enough.
3. Test options. Options: (a) leave it to the player; (b) require disclosure and review of all outside treatment; (c) restrict players to club-approved providers. Weigh player autonomy against the risk to the player and club.
4. Check codes and law. Strict liability means the player is responsible regardless of who prescribed the substance. Respect medical confidentiality and employment law in any policy.
5. Decide and document. Adopt a written policy and record each review of outside treatment.
6. Communicate and follow up. Educate players about supplement risks and batch-tested products, and audit compliance each season.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: the positive test for DHEA, the CAS finding that the ingestion was not intentional, the 18-month ban from September 11, 2023 and the termination of his Juventus contract.
• Contested: how much fault a player should bear for a doctor’s prescription; whether 18 months was proportionate; and what responsibility the prescribing doctor and the club bear, which the published materials do not resolve.

Why this case matters

Elite athletes increasingly assemble their own medical and performance teams. The Pogba case shows the risk: under strict liability, the athlete carries the consequences of every product, however it was recommended. It is a practical lesson for players, clubs and doctors alike, and a test of how the anti-doping system distinguishes cheating from carelessness.

Key terms

Strict liability

The anti-doping principle that athletes are responsible for any prohibited substance in their bodies, whether or not they meant to take it.

Due process

Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.

Duty of care

The responsibility of coaches, organizations and institutions to protect the health, safety and well-being of those in their charge. It is not a license for total control.

Integrity

A commitment to honesty and ethical principle in competition and administration, including when nobody is watching.

Principal–agent problem

When those acting on others’ behalf (agents such as executives, officials or agents) have interests that diverge from the people they serve.

Trust

The public’s belief that what they are watching is real. Integrity failures are ultimately failures of trust.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Should a professional athlete be held responsible for a supplement prescribed by a doctor who claimed expertise with elite athletes?
2. CAS found Pogba 'not without fault.' What should a careful player have done differently?
3. Is the gap between four years for intentional doping and much shorter bans for careless ingestion appropriate?
4. What responsibility do clubs have when players seek medical treatment outside club structures?
5. Did the length of the process, from August 2023 to October 2024, itself impose an unfair penalty?

Sources

1. CAS confirms the anti-doping rule violation committed by Paul Pogba but reduces the period of ineligibility from 4 years to 18 months (Media Release) — Court of Arbitration for Sport
2. Paul Pogba: Juventus midfielder provisionally suspended after drugs test — BBC Sport
3. Cas gives reasons for reducing Pogba doping ban — BBC Sport
4. Club Statement | Paul Pogba — Juventus
5. Tearful Pogba signs Monaco deal after doping ban — BBC Sport
6. What Should Athletes Know about DHEA? — U.S. Anti-Doping Agency
7. Reduced to ten men again, AS Monaco fall to Stade Rennais (Nov. 22, 2025) — AS Monaco
8. Paul Pogba returns from doping ban for Monaco debut in Ligue 1 (Nov. 23, 2025) — Al Jazeera
9. World Anti-Doping Code 2021 — World Anti-Doping Agency
10. Football: Paul Pogba Doping Case (CAS 2024/A/10443 reasoned award) — Sports Law & Taxation