Chelsea’s Mudryk free to play after appeal against doping ban
Chelsea winger Mykhailo Mudryk can return to football immediately after the Football Association resolved his doping case, ending a suspension that had kept him out since November 2024. The decision matters because it overturns the practical effect of a four-year ban and allows the 25-year-old Ukraine international to rejoin Chelsea’s squad and pre-season tour.
Mudryk returned a low-level adverse finding for meldonium during an out-of-competition test while on Ukraine duty in October 2024, was charged in June 2025 and received a four-year ban in January before appealing to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. He accepted an anti-doping rule breach and agreed to a suspension matching time already served; the FA said updated Wada guidance means the concentration found would not now have been reported, although those changes are not retrospective. Mudryk, who joined Chelsea for an initial £61m and is contracted until 2031, says he never knowingly or intentionally took a banned substance.
- Mudryk may play immediately after his doping case was resolved.
- His four-year ban was replaced by time already served.
- Updated testing guidance would not flag his sample today.
New here? Start with this
Meldonium is a medicine used to treat some heart conditions, but it is banned in sport because it can affect how the body uses oxygen. Anti-doping rules allow sporting bodies to test athletes and impose suspensions when banned substances are found.
Mykhailo Mudryk is a Ukrainian winger who joined Chelsea from Shakhtar Donetsk in 2023. The Football Association oversees football in England, while the Court of Arbitration for Sport hears appeals in disputes such as doping cases.
The case concerns how anti-doping rules are applied when a test finds only a small amount of a banned substance. It also raises questions about how changes to testing guidance relate to earlier cases and suspensions.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Allowing Mudryk to return recognises that the low-level finding would not be reported under updated Wada guidance and that he accepted a suspension covering the time already served. Given his claim that he did not knowingly take meldonium, ending the practical effect of a four-year ban may be a proportionate resolution that lets him resume his career.
The case against
Anti-doping rules depend on athletes being responsible for substances found in their samples, and Mudryk accepted that a rule breach occurred. Because the revised Wada guidance is not retrospective, ending the longer ban may raise concerns about consistent enforcement and whether athletes in comparable past cases received different treatment.