Chelsea winger Mykhailo Mudryk fighting 4-year ban in doping case, CAS says
Lausanne (Switzerland) (AP): Ukraine international Mykhailo Mudryk, one of the most expensive players in world soccer, risks missing the next European Championship if he loses his appeal against a four-year ban in a doping case.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport confirmed the Chelsea winger, who was signed by the Premier League club for $108 million in 2023, was in the process of appealing against the four-year ban imposed by the English Football Association.
The sides are exchanging written submissions and a hearing has not yet been scheduled, the court said.
There had been no update on the case since the FA said last June that Mudryk had been formally charged with "Anti-Doping Rule Violations alleging the presence and/or use of a prohibited substance."
The exact substance involved has not been confirmed officially.
Mudryk said in December 2024 that he had “ not done anything wrong ” after it was confirmed he had given a drug-test sample that contained a banned substance. He has not played since then.
Mudryk has not commented on the case since. He has posted footage of him training in private on social media in recent months and was seen with Chelsea fans last year when Chelsea won the Conference League final in Poland.
A four-year ban is the starting point for sanctions in a typical first-time doping case under the World Anti-Doping Agency rules used across multiple Olympic sports.
The period is often shortened for mitigating circumstances, such as if an athlete consumed a contaminated supplement or made a mistake with medication, or if the athlete admits an offense at an earlier stage.
Doping sanctions are typically backdated to start from the date an athlete was first provisionally suspended pending a full hearing. The next European Championship will be in the summer of 2028, co-hosted by Britain and Ireland.
Mudryk sat out Ukraine's recent World Cup qualifying campaign. Ukraine fell short of qualification by losing to Sweden in a playoff in March.
Mudryk was one of the most sought-after players in Europe when he was signed from Shakhtar Donetsk after competing interest from Chelsea's London rival Arsenal.
The 25-year-old from Ukraine has scored 10 goals in 73 games for Chelsea since then but many of those appearances have been from the bench and his time at the club was widely regarded as underwhelming even before the doping case emerged.
Chelsea gave Mudryk an eight-and-a-half-year contract, an unusually long deal in modern soccer. It is due to run through 2031.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Trump administration says its war in Iran has been 'terminated' before 60-day deadline
Washington (AP): The Trump administration is arguing that the war in Iran has already ended because of the ceasefire that began in early April, an interpretation that would allow the White House to avoid the need to seek congressional approval.
The statement furthers an argument laid out by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during testimony in the Senate earlier Thursday, when he said the ceasefire effectively paused the war. Under that rationale, the administration has not yet met the requirement mandated by a 1973 law to seek formal approval from Congress for military action that extends beyond 60 days.
A senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the administration's position, said for purposes of that law, “the hostilities that began on Saturday, Feb 28 have terminated.” The official said the US military and Iran have not exchanged fire since the two-week ceasefire that began April 7.
While the ceasefire has since been extended, Iran maintains its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, and the US Navy is maintaining a blockade to prevent Iran's oil tankers from getting out to sea.
Under the War Powers Resolution, the law that sought to constrain a president's military powers, President Donald Trump had until Friday to seek congressional authorisation or cease fighting. The law also allows an administration to extend that deadline by 30 days.
Democrats have pushed the administration for formal approval of the Iran war, and the 60-day mark would likely have been a turning point for a swath of Republican lawmakers who backed temporary action against Tehran but insisted on congressional input for something longer.
“That deadline is not a suggestion; it is a requirement,” said Sen Susan Collins, R-Maine, who voted Thursday in favour of a measure that would end military action in Iran since Congress hadn't given its approval. She added that “further military action against Iran must have a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close."
Richard Goldberg, who served as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction for the National Security Council during Trump's first term, said he has recommended to administration officials to simply transition to a new operation, which he suggested could be called “Epic Passage,” a sequel to Operation Epic Fury.
That new mission, he said, “would inherently be a mission of self-defence focused on reopening the strait while reserving the right to offensive action in support of restoring freedom of navigation.”
“That to me solves it all,” added Goldberg, who is now a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish Washington think tank.
During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Hegseth said it was the administration's “understanding” that the 60-day clock was on pause while the two countries were in a ceasefire.
Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel at the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert on war powers, said that interpretation would be a “sizeable extension of previous legal gamesmanship” related to the 1973 law.
“To be very, very clear and unambiguous, nothing in the text or design of the War Powers Resolution suggests that the 60-day clock can be paused or terminated,” she said.
Other presidents have argued that the military action they've taken was not intense enough or was too intermittent to qualify under the War Powers Resolution. But Trump's war in Iran would certainly not be such a case, Ebright said, adding that lawmakers need to push back against the administration on that kind of argument.
