Former Liverpool star Mamadou Sakho sues for £13m over drug test ‘that damaged career’

“Tarnished reputation”: Mamadou Sakho outside court

Premier League star Mamadou Sakho is suing the world anti-doping agency for £13 million over claims a drug-test blunder torpedoed his career at Liverpool.

The centre-back, 29, was suspended from football in April 2016 after testing positive for a fat-burning substance.

The provisional 30-day suspension meant Sakho missed out on Liverpool’s Europa League final defeat to Sevilla and he claims the ban also cost him a place in France’s Euro 2016 squad.

He was eventually cleared in disciplinary proceedings before Uefa after they found the substance — higenamine — was not actually on the banned list.

The Crystal Palace defender is now suing for £13 million, arguing his earnings as a player and the worth of his personal brand have been reduced by his move away from Liverpool.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) denies it is responsible for his transfer, saying it was caused by “disciplinary issues” and a “personality clash” with Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp.

At the High Court yesterday, Stuart Ritchie QC, representing Mr Sakho, said the footballer dropped out of contention for the France national team, had to pay for lawyers and reports to fight the case and left Liverpool in January 2017 for Crystal Palace.

“Although this is a distinguished club, it does not have the worldwide reputation of Liverpool with the value this brings to a player,” he said.

The court heard Mr Sakho had tested positive for the substance — which was present in a dietary supplement he had taken — in a urine test in March 2016.

Stuart Ritchie QC said current club Palace do not have the worldwide reputation of Liverpool
Getty Images

The laboratory wrote to Wada and was told that the substance was on its banned list under “B2-agonists”. But the list did not specifically name higenamine and Uefa found it was “not proven” that it was on the list, clearing Mr Sakho in July 2016.

The Uefa tribunal said there were “significant doubts” whether higenamine is a “B2-agonist” and said there had been a “lack of communication” from Wada about its status.

Judge Victoria McCloud has ordered that a trial on liability to determine if Wada was negligent take place before the level of any compensation is decided.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in

MORE ABOUT