Musa Hassan Bility has filed an appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against the FIFA Ad hoc Electoral Committee’s decision of 12 November 2015 in which his candidacy for the upcoming presidential election was refused.
The FIFA Ad hoc Electoral Committee noted that Mr Bility had failed to pass the integrity checks carried out by the Investigatory Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee, and for this reason, could not be admitted as a candidate for the election for the office of FIFA President on 26 February 2016.
In appealing to the CAS, Mr Bility seeks a final decision declaring that his integrity is not challenged and that he can run for the FIFA presidential election in February. He also filed a request to suspend the execution of the challenged decision to allow him to continue with his election campaign pending a final decision on the merits of the case. Finally, Mr Bility has requested that an expedited procedure be put in place to enable the final decision on the merits to be issued before the end of the year.
Musa Hassan Bility
FIFA has agreed to the expedited procedure and a procedural calendar has been determined in order to complete the arbitration procedure before the end of 2015. A hearing could take place before Christmas but a date has not been confirmed yet.
FIFA’s independent Ethics Committee has opened formal proceedings against Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini in relation over an alleged “disloyal payment” made by suspended FIFA president to the Frenchman in 2011.
Last week, the pair had their appeals against 90-day suspensions rejected by the governing body’s appeals committee.
“The adjudicatory chamber of the independent Ethics Committee chaired by Hans-Joachim Eckert has today opened formal adjudicatory proceedings against Joseph S. Blatter and Michel Platini based on the final reports submitted by the investigatory chamber,” a statement from FIFA announced.
“The adjudicatory chamber has studied the reports carefully and decided to institute formal proceedings against the two officials. For reasons linked to privacy rights and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the adjudicatory chamber will not publish details of the sanctions requested by the investigatory chamber in its final reports.
“In the course of the proceedings, both parties will be invited to submit positions including any evidence with regard to the final reports of the investigatory
chamber (art. 70 par. 2 of the FIFA Code of Ethics) and they may request a hearing (art. 74 par. 2 of the FCE).
“The adjudicatory chamber intends to come to a decision in both cases during the month of December.”
Michel Platini is now taking an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the hope that he will be able to stand in FIFA’s presidential election on February 26th
The FEI has announced two new Adverse Analytical Findings involving prohibited substances.
Samples taken at the CSIO2* in Tehran (IRI), 22-25 September 2015 from the horse Sir de Diamant (FEI ID 102PH75/IRI), ridden by Mohammad Davoud Shekofti (IRI), have returned positive for the Banned Substance Stanozolol and its metabolite, 16 Beta Hydroxy-Stanozol, an anabolic steroid that promotes muscle mass. The horse’s sample also tested positive for the Controlled Medication substances Dexamethasone, a corticosteroid used to treat inflammatory and auto-immune conditions, and the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug Flunixin.
Samples taken at the Young Horse Endurance Championships in Valeggio sul Minico (ITA) on 26 September 2015 from the horse Barbaforte Bosana (FEI ID 104OJ42), ridden by Camilla Malta (ITA), have tested positive for the Banned Substance Ergonovine, a vasoconstrictor.
Both athletes have been provisionally suspended from the date of notification (16 November 2015). The horses have also been provisionally suspended for a two-month period.
Support personnel
In a separate case, the FEI has notified Dr Pasha Syed Kamaal (IND) that a case has been opened against him as support personnel in the 2012 case of Glenmorgan (FEI ID UAE40813). Samples taken from the horse, which was ridden by HH Sheik Hazza bin Sultan bin Zayed Al Nahyan (UAE) in the CEI3* 160 km at Al Wathba (UAE) on 10 February 2012 returned positive for the Banned Substance Propoxyphene, an opioid analgaesic, and its metabolite Norpropoxyphene.
The FEI Tribunal had already imposed a 27-month suspension on HH Sheik Hazza bin Sultan bin Zayed Al Nahyan as the Person Responsible, which was reduced to 18 months on appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). During the FEI Tribunal and CAS proceedings, Dr Syed Kamaal made statements confirming that he had administered the product Fustex to the horse on the night before the event. Fustex contains Propoxyphene, although it is not listed as an ingredient.
Dr Syed Kamaal has been provisionally suspended from the date of notification (16 November) in advance of the case coming before the FEI Tribunal.
Final Decisions
The FEI Tribunal has issued Final Decisions in the case of the horse Up Date 2 (FEI ID GER46325/ITA), with sanctions imposed against the rider, horse owner and vet. Samples taken from the horse at the CSI3* San Giovanni in Marignano (ITA) on 9 August returned positive for the Banned Substance Stanozol.
A two-year period of ineligibility was imposed on the rider, Mariano Ossa (ARG), the Person Responsible (PR) under the FEI Equine Anti-Doping and Controlled Medication Regulations, from the date of sample collection. However, the FEI Tribunal reduced the period of suspension by five months as substantial assistance from the PR resulted in proceedings being opened against the horse owner and the vet. As a result, the PR will be ineligible through to 8 March 2016. He was also fined CHF 2,000 and ordered to pay CHF 1,000 towards the legal costs of the judicial procedure.
Additionally, the horse has been disqualified from all placings at the event, as well as from all placings achieved since 21 May 2014, the date of administration of the Banned Substance.
The horse owner, Fabio Mazzarella (VEN), and the FEI Permitted Treating Veterinarian Dr William Yerkes (USA) were both charged under Article 2.2 of the FEI Equine Anti-Doping Regulations relating to use or attempted use of a Banned Substance. A two-year period of ineligibility has been imposed on Dr Yerkes, and a 19-month suspension for Mr Mazzarella. Both periods of ineligibility have been backdated to 21 May 2014, the date when the Banned Substance was administered to the horse. The owner has also been fined CHF 5,000.
In a decision released on 16 November 2015, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) based in Lausanne, Switzerland, the highest judicial authority for sport in the world, dismissed an appeal against the re-election of Olegario Vázquez Raña as President of the International Shooting Sport Federation (ISSF).
In a decision released on 16 November 2015, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) based in Lausanne, Switzerland, the highest judicial authority for sport in the world, dismissed an appeal against the re-election of Olegario Vázquez Raña as President of the International Shooting Sport Federation (ISSF) on 3 December 2014. The appeal was filed by the Kuwait Shooting Federation and former ISSF Vice President Sheikh Salman Al-Sabah, who was also a candidate for ISSF President. Their appeal asked the court to cancel the election. The court rejected the arguments brought forward by the appellants and confirmed the validity of Mr. Vazquez Raña’s election as ISSF President.
“I am very satisfied with the decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. This decision clearly vindicates us from the accusations made by my opponent in the ISSF elections, who did not agree with a democratic and constitutionally valid ISSF election process,” said Vázquez Raña after CAS announced its ruling. “I wish to express my gratitude to the ISSF family for electing me and for their support throughout all of my presidency.”
Vázquez Raña was elected to the highest post of the world governing body of the shooting sport when he received 165 votes against 128 for his opponent, Kuwaiti Sheikh Salman Al-Sabah, whose Ministry in Kuwait sent several letters to sports leaders in various nations in an attempt to influence their vote and take advantage of his position as Minister of Information and Youth Affairs in Kuwait.
CAS dismisses an appeal against the re-election of Olegario Vazquez Raña as ISSF President
After the ruling by CAS, Olegario Vázquez Raña stated, “It is now time for the entire shooting sport family to unite for the benefit of the sport and our athletes. Together, we can help our sport continue to grow in popularity and develop around the world. Furthermore, we have a major contribution to make in helping IOC President Dr. Thomas Bach achieve his vision under Olympic Agenda 2020.”
The Mexican businessman, who had an outstanding career as an athlete and participated in four Olympic Games from 1964 through 1976, said, “now that this appeal against our elections has been dismissed, it is time for all members of the ISSF family to come together in our common cause to promote the shooting sport and its athletes, and to unite behind our common values of sport for all, inclusivity and respect for the human right to practice sport.”
David Nakhid has filed an appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against the FIFA Ad hoc Electoral Committee’s decision of 28 October 2015 in which his candidacy for the upcoming presidential election was refused.
The FIFA Ad hoc Electoral Committee found that Mr Nakhid had not presented declarations of support from at least five member associations, and for this reason, could not be admitted as a candidate for the election for the office of FIFA President on 26 February 2016.
In appealing to the CAS, Mr Nakhid seeks the annulment of the challenged decision and an order that his candidacy be reinstated. No hearing date has been fixed for the moment.
A procedural calendar will be determined within the next days, after consultation with the parties.
Italian MotoGP rider Valentino Rossi has filed an appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against the FIM Stewards’ decision to impose 3 penalty points on his record following an incident with another rider during the Shell Malaysia Motorcycle Grand Prix race held on 25 October 2015.
The FIM Race Direction found that Mr Rossi deliberately ran wide in order to force the other rider off line, resulting in contact causing the other rider to crash out of the race. For this breach of the FIM Road Racing World Championship Grand Prix Regulations (the FIM Regulations), the FIM Race Direction imposed 3 penalty points on the rider’s record. Mr Rossi immediately appealed such decision to the FIM Stewards who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty imposed by the FIM Race Direction.
Since Valentino Rossi already has 1 penalty point from an earlier incident, this decision brings him to a total of 4 penalty points. On the basis of the FIM Regulations, a rider with 4 penalty points must start the next race from last grid position.
In his appeal to the CAS, Mr Rossi seeks the annulment of the penalty, or at least a reduction from 3 points to 1. Together with his appeal, Mr Rossi has filed an urgent application to stay the execution of the challenged decision in order not to lose his place on the starting grid at the next, and last, event of the season which will be held in Valencia/Spain on 6-8 November 2015.
An arbitration procedure is in progress. A decision on Mr Rossi’s request for a stay is expected to be issued no later than 6 November 2015.
The IAAF takes the allegations published by The Sunday Times and ARD very seriously and has investigated them thoroughly.
• The published allegations were sensationalist and confusing: the results referred to were not positive tests. In fact, ARD and The Sunday Times both admit that their evaluation of the data did not prove doping.
• Professor Giuseppe d’Onofrio, one of the world’s leading haematologists working as an expert in the field of the Athlete Biological Passport, commented: “Ethically, I deplore public comments coming from colleagues on blood data that has been obtained and processed outside of the strict regulatory framework established by WADA which is designed to ensure a complete and fair review of ABP profiles. There is no space for shortcuts, simplistic approaches or sensationalism when athletes’ careers and reputations are at stake.”
• The data on which the reports were based was not ‘secret’ – the IAAF published a detailed analysis of this data more than four years ago.
• The Sunday Times’ story is based on the allegation that 6 specific athletes recorded suspicious results which we did not follow up. In fact, as the newspaper was told before publication, each test led to intensive follow up, as a result of which the 6 athletes were subsequently caught cheating and banned.
• The IAAF wants to stamp out all doping in sport and welcomes greater public debate. There is no perfect system for catching drug cheats, but the IAAF has been at the forefront of drug testing for many years. Under its pioneering Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) system, more athletes have been banned for cheating by the IAAF than all other sports federations and national anti-doping agencies put together.
It is important to be very clear that a large proportion of these blood samples were collected in a period before the implementation of the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) and cannot therefore be used as proof of doping. The IAAF quite rightly operates within an anti-doping framework, provided by WADA, where suspicion alone does not equal proof of doping. Any reporting or insinuation of such is wholly irresponsible on behalf of these media outlets and we refute outright any allegation that the IAAF did not appropriately follow up suspicious profiles which had been proactively identified through its world leading blood profiling programme. The IAAF condemns in the strongest possible terms the distribution, sharing, and publication of private and confidential medical data that was obtained from the IAAF without consent. The IAAF retains the right to take any action necessary to protect the rights of the IAAF and its athletes.
In their reporting, the ARD and The Sunday Times made allegations against the IAAF regarding the level of blood doping in the sport, and accused the sport of doing nothing to act upon this data. While the ARD and The Sunday Times may wish to pretend they have a “scoop” by reporting on suspected prevalence of doping, their efforts are in fact over four years behind those of the IAAF. The IAAF has already publicly published (in 2011) a review of its blood profiles in a peer reviewed journal. Far from hiding from these statistics, to our knowledge the IAAF is the only sport in the world to have openly reported, reviewed and analysed the statistics available in its long-term blood profiling database.
The 2011 IAAF study, which indicates a similar overall level of suspected doping as has been recently reported, found that there are clearly some nations who account for the largest percentage of suspicious blood values. The IAAF does not shy away from this fact. The IAAF also notes that those countries who are reported by the ARD and The Sunday Times as having among the highest percentage of abnormal samples are the very same countries who currently lack a history of implementing a strong, robust and Code compliant national anti-doping program backed with government support. WADA is responsible for national compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code, and the IAAF remains available as always to provide assistance wherever possible to ensure these nations are implementing effective anti-doping controls. In that regard, the IAAF is surprised by WADA’s comments, particularly given how closely it has worked with WADA over the entire period to try to advance the fight against blood doping, notably in assisting in the development and implementation of the Athlete Biological Passport.
The IAAF is responsible for working with its Member Federations to ensure they are also complying with the Code and its requirements, and acknowledges that there is work still do in some nations. The IAAF is however very encouraged that those countries that are actively implementing serious and Code complaint anti-doping programmes have a much smaller level of suspected doping.
Any reporting by the ARD and The Sunday Times that the IAAF was negligent in addressing or following up the suspicious profiles is simply false, disappointing, and misinformed journalism. To the contrary, in an attempt to catch and sanction the cheats in our sport, the IAAF has used every means available to it within the anti-doping framework it operates in. We believe that our targeted out-of-competition (OOC) testing programme during this time was the equal of any other sport or anti-doping organisation around the world. WADA was well aware and well informed of our testing programme at the time, and never once questioned its competence or appropriateness.
It should be again made clear that the IAAF is only able to use the tests and analysis which are validated and made available to it through WADA. At the time in question, the ABP was not in existence. The IAAF, therefore, systematically compiled a database of blood profiles from international athletes, and then used this database to guide its targeted, no-advance-notice, out-of-competition testing programme. The 2015 World Anti-Doping Code stresses the importance of an intelligence, risk based approach to testing. This is exactly what the IAAF was already implementing ten years earlier.
Lamine Diack, IAAF President, credit IAAF
Below is a summary of how the IAAF has implemented blood profiling:
• The IAAF used the blood profiling database as a means of targeting repeated intelligence led, no-advance-notice, OOC testing on the most suspicious athletes. Athletes were targeted individually, with testing timed to correlate with the most likely periods of doping as indicated by their individual profile and competition schedule
• In addition, the IAAF doping control program deliberately prioritised and targeted athletes from countries where we believe there was insufficient quality OOC testing occurring domestically.
• The IAAF has immediately implemented and used each and every validated detection method made available to it by WADA
• The IAAF stored and then re-analysed samples when new detection methods became available (CERA and other forms of EPO)
• The IAAF was one of the first sports (or anti-doping organisations) in the world to adopt the ABP. The database of profiles currently being reported allowed the IAAF to immediately target its blood passport program to the correct athletes, and the results are clear – the IAAF has sanctioned more athletes through the ABP than all other sports combined.
• Robin Parisotto, the expert relied on by The Sunday Times, has previously confirmed in an interview with Cycling Tips published in 2014: “…with the biological passport. It is not a one-off test, where you may simply test positive and then the case goes ahead. In this case you have to accumulate a great amount of detail. You have to cast your eye over perhaps years of data to see if there is some sort of pattern that is suspicious.”
While the anti-doping community as a whole has acknowledged that the tests currently available will not catch all cheats, the IAAF strongly refutes any notion that it has not used every possible tool to target suspected dopers. We would be happy for our targeted testing programme to be compared to that of any other International Sporting Federation.
In order to protect clean athletes, the IAAF always welcomes any information which can lead to the opening of proceedings against an athlete or support personnel for a doping rule violation. In this regard we will study the other aspects of the ARD TV programme to see if it is able to assist. The IAAF also continues to cooperate with and assist WADA in its ongoing investigations.
Key statistics
• The IAAF has conducted more than 19,000 blood screening tests since 2001, which is the most comprehensive and universal blood testing programme implemented among sports federations and national anti-doping agencies, including 8000 tests in the period 2001 and 2009.
• The IAAF followed up vigorously and consistently on all blood screening results considered as atypical by its experts in accordance with the procedures and protocols then applicable. In particular more than 8,800 urine EPO tests were conducted in-competition and out-of-competition in that period, notably as a follow-up to atypical blood test results.
• 141 athletes tested positive for EPO since the first case at the IAAF World Championships in Edmonton in 2001.
• Since 2009, the IAAF has collected more than 11,000 blood samples for ABP purposes on more than 5,000 athletes across all disciplines of athletics, male and female elite athletes and junior and senior athletes and collected more than 7,400 urine EPO tests in the same period.
• All 11,000 blood tests results were systematically recorded on ADAMS (the online platform for proposed by WADA for the administration of anti-doping programmes) and visible to WADA at all times in full transparency.
• Since 2011, more than 150 ABP profiles were referred to the IAAF Expert Panel and more are to be submitted in the next few weeks.
• Since 2011, 63 doping cases have been pursued by the IAAF on the basis of ABP profiles considered as atypical by the independent expert panel. 39 athletes have already received a sanction, 24 are under proceedings and new proceedings will be initiated shortly.
• The IAAF had to appeal 15 ABP cases to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) because the athlete had either been exonerated by his National Federation or national anti-doping agency because they failed to impose the correct consequences under IAAF Rules.
• The IAAF had an anti-doping budget of $2,030,000 in 2014 and $2,030,000 in 2015.
• The IAAF Medical and Anti-Doping Department has 10 full-time personnel.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has issued an Interim Award in the arbitration procedure between the Indian athlete Dutee Chand, the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF).
The CAS Panel in charge of the procedure (The Hon. Justice Annabelle Claire Bennett AO, Australia (President), Prof. Richard H. McLaren, Canada, and Dr Hans Nater, Switzerland) has suspended the “IAAF Regulation Governing Eligibility of Females with Hyperandrogenism to Compete in Women’s Competition” (the “Hyperandrogenism Regulations”) for a maximum period of two years in order to give the IAAF the opportunity to provide the CAS with scientific evidence about the quantitative relationship between enhanced testosterone levels and improved athletic performance in hyperandrogenic athletes.
In the absence of such evidence, the CAS Panel was unable to conclude that hyperandrogenic female athletes may benefit from such a significant performance advantage that it is necessary to exclude them from competing in the female category. While the Hyperandrogenism Regulations are suspended, Ms Dutee Chand is permitted to compete in both national and international level athletics events. Should the IAAF not file any scientific evidence within the two-year period granted by the CAS Panel, the Hyperandrogenism Regulations will be declared void.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) noted today that UD Almería S.A.D. has decided to withdraw its appeal against FIFA following the last round of the 2014/2015 season of the Primera Liga. As a consequence, the CAS arbitration has now concluded and the Spanish Football Association is required to deduct 3 points from the points-tally of UD Almería S.A.D. for the 2014/2015 season of the Primera Liga, as ordered by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
On 28 August 2013, the FIFA Players’ Status Committee issued a decision ordering UD Almería S.A.D. to make a payment to the Danish club Aalborg BK in relation to the transfer of the player Michael Jakobsen. On 30 October 2014, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee issued a decision pursuant to which UD Almería S.A.D. was granted an ultimate period of 30 days to settle its debts with Aalborg BK, failing which the Spanish Football Association would be ordered to deduct three points from the club’s points-tally in the standings of the Primera Liga.
In a letter dated 26 January 2015, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee secretariat noted that, while UD Almería S.A.D. had settled its outstanding debts towards the Danish club, it had not done so within the 30-day grace period. Accordingly, the Spanish Football Association was required to proceed with the three-point deduction.
On 10 February 2015, UD Almería S.A.D. filed an appeal at the CAS with respect to such letter, together with a request for provisional measures, requesting that the points-deduction be stayed until the conclusion of the CAS proceedings. The parties were heard at the CAS headquarters in Lausanne, on 20 May 2015, by the CAS Panel in charge of this matter. After consultation with the parties, the issuance of the CAS decision was scheduled for today 26 May 2015, but the decision of UD Almería S.A.D. to withdraw its appeal has put an end to this procedure.
On the occasion of its 43rd meeting, held in Lausanne (Switzerland), the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) elected Mr John Coates (Australia) as President of ICAS for the period 2015-2018.
Mr Coates has been a member of ICAS since the creation of the Council in 1994. He became the 3rd ICAS President in 2010, succeeding Judge Kéba Mbaye (Senegal, 1994-2007), founder and first President of ICAS, and Mr Mino Auletta (Italy, 2007-2010).
Mr Coates is a lawyer from Sydney. He is President of the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) and Vice-President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
At the same meeting, the ICAS also elected its two Vice-Presidents: Mr Michael Lenard (United States) and Mrs Tjasa Andrée-Prosenc (Slovenia). Mr Lenard, lawyer, is an Olympian in handball (1984), former Vice-President of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and former Vice-Chairman of the USOC Athlete Commission.
Mrs Andrée-Prosenc, lawyer, was a national champion in figure and roller skating; she is a Council member of the International Skating Union (ISU), an ISU judge, referee and technical delegate at the Olympic Games and Executive Board Member of the NOC of Slovenia.
John Coates, President of ICAS
The presidents of the CAS arbitration divisions have also been elected:
Ordinary Arbitration Division:
President: Mr Nabil Elaraby (Egypt); Mr Elaraby is a former Judge of the International Court of Justice in The Hague and former Foreign Minister of Egypt.
Deputy President: Ms Tricia Smith (Canada); Ms Smith, lawyer, is a four-time Olympian in rowing (1976-1988; silver medallist in 1984), gold medallist at the Commonwealth Games 1986 and winner of seven world championship medals; she is Vice-President of both the International Rowing Federation (FISA) and the Canadian Olympic Committee (COC).
Appeals Arbitration Division:
President: Ms Corinne Schmidhauser (Switzerland); Ms Schmidhauser, lawyer, is an Olympian in alpine skiing (1988) and winner of the 1987 World Cup in slalom; she is the President of the Swiss Anti-doping Foundation.
 Deputy President: Mr Göran Petersson (Sweden); Mr Petersson, lawyer, is a former national champion in sailing and a former Chief Judge at the Olympic Games and at the America’s Cup; he chaired the International Sailing Federation (ISAF) between 2004 and 2012 and, in this capacity, was an IOC Member from 2009 to 2012.
The President, the Vice-Presidents and the President of each CAS arbitration division form the ICAS Board.
The Secretary General of ICAS and of CAS is Mr Matthieu Reeb (Switzerland). He is responsible for the management of the CAS Court Office based in Lausanne and composed of 25 employees.
The ICAS is composed of 20 persons. In addition to the 7 above-mentioned members, the current composition of ICAS is the following (in alphabetical order):
Dr Abdullah Al Hayyan (Kuwait), Professor of Law, member of the FINA Ethics Committee
Mr Patrick Baumann (Switzerland), Lawyer, FIBA Secretary General, IOC Member
Mr Scott Blackmun (USA), Lawyer, CEO US Olympic Committee
Ms Alexandra Brilliantova (Russia), Lawyer, Head of Legal, Russian Olympic Committee
Mr Miguel Cardenal (Spain), Professor of Law, State Secretary for Education, Culture & Sport
Ms Moya Dodd (Australia), Lawyer, Member of FIFA and of AFC Executive Committees
Judge Ivo Eusebio (Switzerland), Federal Judge, Member of IIHF Disciplinary Committee
Judge Ellen Gracie Northfleet (Brazil), Former Chief Justice of Federal Supreme Court in Brazil
Ms Carole Malinvaud (France), Lawyer and specialist in international commercial law and arbitration
Justice Yvonne Mokgoro (South Africa), Advocate for Social Cohesion in South Africa, former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa
Mr Richard W. Pound (Canada), Lawyer, IOC member, Olympian in swimming (1960), member of WADA Foundation Board
Justice Wilhelmina Thomassen (Netherlands), former judge of the European Court of Human Rights and of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands
Judge Xue Hanqin (China), Judge of the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
The responsibility of the ICAS is to facilitate the resolution of sports-related disputes through arbitration or mediation conducted by independent arbitrators/mediators.
Among its duties, the ICAS manages the administration and finances of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), promotes sports arbitration generally and sets up special CAS divisions on the occasion of multi-sports events, such as the Olympic Games, the Commonwealth Games, the Asian Games, the FIFA World Cup and the UEFA Euro. The ICAS is composed of 20 international lawyers coming equally from the sports movement and from the arbitration world or international judiciary.
The CAS has on its lists 330 arbitrators and 60 mediators from 90 different countries. It registers more than 400 cases every year.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has issued its decision in the arbitration procedure between Legia Warszawa SA (the “Club”) and UEFA. The CAS has dismissed Legia Warszawa’s appeal and confirmed the decision issued on 14 August 2014 by the UEFA Appeals Body.
The UEFA Control and Disciplinary Body (UEFA CEBD) primarily found the Club to have breached the UEFA Champions League Regulations and UEFA Disciplinary Regulations by selecting a player serving a disciplinary suspension, Bartosz Bereszynski, to take part in the second leg of the third round qualifier against Celtic FC. The UEFA CEBD declared the match Celtic FC v. Legia Warszawa played on 6 August 2014 as forfeit and deemed Legia Warszawa to have lost the match 3:0 meaning that the Club would exit the competition. The Club appealed such decision to the UEFA Appeals Body, which dismissed the appeal.
On 15 August 2015, Legia Warszawa filed an appeal to the CAS to overturn the UEFA decisions, as well as an urgent request for provisional measures, requesting provisional admittance to the 2014/2015 UEFA Champions League matches while the CAS proceedings were in progress. The President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division denied Legia Warszawa’s request for provisional measures.
The arbitration procedure was referred to a panel of CAS arbitrators: Mr Manfred Nan, the Netherlands (President), Prof. Ulrich Haas, Germany, and Mr Fabio Iudica, Italy. The Panel heard the parties at a hearing held at the CAS Court Office on 28 January 2015.
Legia Warszawa argued that the UEFA rules and guidelines surrounding the need to include Bartosz Bereszynski’s name on the official list submitted to UEFA were unclear and amounted to “excessive formalism” and that the sanction was disproportionate. The Club also sought financial compensation of EUR 1,854,385. UEFA, in turn, explained the relevant rules and circular letter in Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport order to demonstrate why a player needs to be registered to serve a suspension, and noted that Legia Warszawa had followed the correct procedure on a previous occasion.
The CAS Panel found that UEFA’s requirement that only listed players can serve pending suspensions did not constitute excessive formalism and that it was compulsory for the club to list the player in order for him to serve his suspension.
The Panel further found that Legia Warszawa’s violation of this requirement constituted a disciplinary infringement justifying the imposition of a disciplinary sanction, and that UEFA’s decision to declare the Club’s match against Celtic FC to be lost by forfeit was not disproportionate. In view of the foregoing, the Panel found that it was not necessary to address the claim for compensation.
The Arbitral Award will be published on the CAS website in due course.
THE APPEAL OF AMAR MURALIDHARAN IS DISMISSED BY THE CAS FOLLOWING FIRST EVER HEARING HELD AT THE CAS ALTERNATIVE HEARING CENTRE IN ABU DHABI
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has dismissed the appeal of the Indian swimmer, Amar Muralidharan, against the decisions taken by the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ADDP) and the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel (ADAP) of the Indian National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA).
On 26 August 2010, during the National Aquatic Championships in Jaipur, India, Amar Muralidharan was randomly selected by the NADA to provide an in-competition anti-doping control test. His sample was found to contain methylhexaneamine, a substance prohibited in-competition. The ADDP opened proceedings against the swimmer and issued its decision on 5 November 2012, finding that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation and sanctioning him with a two-year period of ineligibility. The athlete then appealed such decision to the ADAP which, on 3 June 2014, confirmed the ADDP’s decision.
On 17 June 2014, Amar Muralidharan filed an appeal at the CAS against the NADA, the National Dope Testing Laboratory in New Delhi, India, and the Indian Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, arguing that the challenged decisions should be annulled on the grounds that his sample had not been processed in accordance with the NADA Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR) and the WADA International Standard for Testing (IST), and should therefore be nullified, and furthermore that he had been denied access to justice through the delays in hearing his case.
This case was heard on 16 January 2015. It was the first ever hearing held at the CAS Alternative Hearing Centre in Abu Dhabi..
Based on the evidence, the Sole Arbitrator found that the errors evident in the document package produced by the laboratory were purely typographical and had no impact on the reliability or integrity of the sample. The errors, while indeed unfortunate and avoidable, were not so fundamental as to call into question the laboratory’s compliance with the IST thereby nullifying the positive sample.
Furthermore, the Sole Arbitrator found that while the NADA’s delays in handling the athlete’s case were excessive, such delays did not fundamentally violate Mr. Muralidharan’s procedural rights.
The full award will be published on the CAS website in the coming weeks.
newfanzone 