Editor’s note: Mario Vigna is a Senior Associate at Coccia De Angelis Vecchio & Associati in Rome, Italy. His main practice areas are sports law, commercial law, and IP law. He also has extensive experience in the Anti-doping field, serving as Deputy-Chief Prosecutor of the Italian NADO and as counsel in domestic and international sports proceedings. He is a frequent speaker at various conferences and workshops. He was not involved in either of the cases discussed below.

I.               Introduction 

Gambling in football is a popular and potentially lucrative activity. It also raises numerous issues. When faced with the issue of gambling, the European Court of Justice (now Court of Justice of the EU) determined that gambling was economic activity per se, notwithstanding gambling’s vulnerability to ethical issues, and thus could not be prohibited outright.[1] With the legality of gambling established, it was left to the proper legislative bodies (national legislatures, national and international federations, etc.) to regulate gambling in order to guard against fraud and corruption. Gambling was not going to disappear; the dangers inherent to gambling would require attention. 

Given the amounts of money sometimes at stake, it is unsurprising that fraud and corruption are constant threats in football gambling. Match-fixing, i.e. wherein participants in a match deliberately attempt to secure a specific result to allow certain gamblers to obtain favorable rewards, is one prominent form of such corrupt activity. FIFA and UEFA, as well as other relevant bodies, have attempted to regulate match-fixing to protect the integrity of football competitions. After all, illicit gambling not only enables unjust enrichment on behalf of the corrupt gamblers and their accomplices; illicit gambling undermines the trust that spectators have in an activity and can lead to a decline in interest as a result.

The Italian Football Federation (FIGC) has adopted a strict liability approach to deter and punish match-fixing. Under the operative rules, clubs and federations whose agents or members engage in match-fixing activity are liable for match-mixing regardless of whether the club or federation itself knew of or condoned the conduct. Unfortunately, two relatively recent appeal decisions—Novara and Pro Patria—have handicapped this strict liability regime by allowing clubs to escape or reduce their liability on account of dubious mitigating circumstances. These decisions have undermined the efficacy of strict liability as a doctrine, and consequently diminish the efforts against match-fixing.

This blog post argues first that strict liability is effective in deterring match-fixing activity so long as adjudicatory bodies enforce it with appropriate rigidity. In fact, the doctrine of strict liability is widespread, in sports law and other fields, precisely because it can be effective. Next, this post critiques the decisions in Novara and Pro Patria, contending that both decisions misapply the principle of proportionality and erroneously recognize certain circumstances to mitigate against liability. As a corrective to these two decisions, this post concludes by outlining an effective application of strict liability and highlighting important regulatory efforts that out to be adopted. And while the discussion herein focuses on Italian football, the ideas explained are widely applicable across all sports and throughout all levels of competition. 

II.             Italian Law, Rules, and Regulations Against Match-fixing in Football

On the eve of the 2006 World Cup, which Italy won, Italian investigators uncovered efforts involving several major football clubs aimed at rigging referee selection for matches. This scandal became known as Calciopoli and implicated clubs from both Serie A and Serie B (respectively the first and second divisions in Italian football). Subsequent investigations in 2011 and 2015 led to additional scandals concerning clubs competing in Serie B and Lega Pro (the third division of Italian football), among them Scommessopoli (Bet City), Last Bet, Dirty Soccer, and Treni del Gol. Match-fixing, it was revealed, was a real problem in Italian football.

The FIGC, as the national football federation, maintains regulatory and disciplinary authority over all Italian football competitions and activity. To address the problem of match-fixing, the FIGC employs a set of regulation that deems match-fixing activity improper and sanctionable under a strict liability principle. Article 4 of the FIGC Code of Sport Justice (CSJ) states:

2. Clubs are strictly liable for disciplinary purposes for the actions of their managers, members and the individuals set forth in art. 1, par. 5

[…]

5. Clubs are presumptively liable for the wrongdoing committed for their benefit by any person. Liability is excluded when it is clearly or reasonably doubtful that the club participated in the wrongdoing or ignored it. [2]

Thus, clubs are liable for match-fixing even if they are not intimately aware of or complicit in the match-fixing efforts that benefit the club; liability is found once someone associated with the club—a player, an agent, etc.—engages via their acts or omissions in match-fixing activity. Match-fixing is explicitly prohibited in Article 7 of the CSJ[3], which also provides that strict liability applies for match-fixing and is punishable subject to the degree of fault borne by the club.[4] Here, it is important to note that under Article 7 the adjudicating body has discretion to assess a club’s degree of fault and reduce accordingly the corresponding sanction(s). This discretion is important; it is, however, in making use of this discretion that the appeal bodies erred in Novara and Pro Patria.

III.           Novara and Pro Patria: Setting the Wrong Precedent

The FIGC Code of Sport Justice applies strict liability to clubs for match-fixing but allows for consideration of mitigating circumstances to reduce the sanction(s) if appropriate. The problem is that currently there is no standard for what qualifies as appropriate mitigating circumstances. Novara and Pro Patria highlight this problem. In both cases, Italian football clubs—Novara Calcio and Aurora Pro Patria—were sanctioned for match-fixing, but later had those sanctions reduced on appeal on the basis of mitigating factors. This blog post contends that those reductions were ill-informed. If strict liability is to work as a deterrent and truly discourage match-fixing, acceptable mitigating factors against strict liability require greater scrutiny than provided in these two cases.

A.    Novara Calcio

An investigation by the Italian media, coined Scommessopoli, uncovered one of the largest match-fixing schemes in Italian footnall history. Scommessopoli was a wide-ranging, multi-dimensional enterprise; players were involved, as were Italian and foreign criminal groups—in total, the investigation alleged that at least twenty-two clubs and sixty-one people participated in match-fixing efforts. One of the individuals involved, Cristian Bertani, played for Novara Calcio, a club in the Italian Serie B. According to the findings of the National Disciplinary Commission, Bertani conspired with a foreign gambling group and a local criminal group to fix matches. Consequently, the National Disciplinary Commission sanctioned Bertani’s club Novara Calcio under the strict liability regime in effect. Novara Calcio was fined EUR 35,000 and received a four-point deduction from the league table.[5]

The club appealed the decision to the FIGC Court of Justice. On appeal, the court reduced the deduction to three points and eliminated the fine entirely:

“[The reduced sanction] leads to a more accurate assessment of the overall conduct of the Appellant of all the activity carried out by the club, whether in a preventative or subsequent manner, specifically aimed at fighting the phenomenon of illicit sports or eliminating the consequences… In this sense, recalling among others, the approval by Novara Calcio of the first organizational model of the legislative decree no. 231/2001 related to the Code of Ethics; earning the ISO 9001:2008 certification of quality, being the first football association to earn it; having contracted since February 2012 the professional services in order to study the betting quota over the matches played by the club, bringing a discipline scheme over those studies thanks to an Antifraud Code in April 2012 “[6]

In essence, the Court reduced the sanctions on account of the club’s implementation of self-protection tools in accordance with the organizational model set forth in the Legislative Decree no. 231/2001. The problem with this decision, however, is that the efforts in question were taken after the incident. The Court treated this post-incident measures as mitigating circumstances, even though these measures were not operative when Bertani attempted to fix matches.

Such allowance of post-incident mitigating factors is inappropriate and undercuts the effort to prevent match-fixing. Indeed, only the prior adoption of an adequate organizational model against match-fixing by a club should (potentially) mitigate against strict liability. Two requirements should be satisfied: (1) prior adoption, and (2) adequate measures. Legislative decree no. 231/2001 and Italian jurisprudence both distinguish between superficial adoption of an organizational model—which is insufficient by itself—and the adoption of an organizational model with demonstrated sufficient, concrete measures to prevent wrong-doing. Only the latter satisfactorily deters potential wrong-doing, and only the latter should (potentially) shield against strict liability so long as a club can prove its preventative efforts were adequately effected. With Novara Calcio, the problem was that the adoption of an organization model was merely superficial, in addition to being after-the-fact, and that the club did not have to prove that the adopted measures were or would be effective in combatting match-fixing.

B.    Aurora Pro Patria 

In 2015, the Catanzaro Police Department arrested more than forty individuals for alleged participation in match-fixing in matches of the Italian 4^th Division. Three arrestees were former members of the club Aurora Pro Patria—two players and one coach—accused of match-fixing activities while employed by Pro Patria. All three were found guilty in the ensuing proceedings. Thus, under the doctrine of strict liability, Pro Patria received a seven-point deduction as a sanction for the conduct of its employees.[7]

Pro Patria appealed the ruling and sanction. And like the Novara case, the sanction was reduced: 

Having found the defendant liable, it cannot but follow the confirmation of the strict liability held by the association (Club). As marked by the vast jurisprudence, indeed, the referred liability cannot be avoided but graduated in the presence of circumstances that would see to deserve special consideration.

… the thorough preventative activity put in action by Aurora Pro Patria, that even when they were not obliged to, they still adopted the model of conduct as set out in the rule Legislative Decree no. 231/2001, they imposed a Code of anti-fraud and have entered into a contract with Federbet [a monitoring company] by which said company will check the flux of the bets related to the activity of the club, we determine that, given the relevant circumstances, the sanction against the association (club) must be reduced…”[8]

The Court reduced the sanction to a three-point deduction. Although the appeal court affirmed strict liability, it undercut its potency by accepting as mitigating circumstances factors that were not in place when the unlawful conduct occurred. The appeal court was in some ways excusing a violation, at least partially, for efforts the responsible party undertook to not commit the same violation again in the future. The efforts had no impact on the violation that already took place.

C.    Problems Posed by the Novara and Pro Patria Rulings 

After being charged with match-fixing, both Novara and Pro Patria hired monitoring companies that supposedly help prevent, or at least detect, potential match-fixing activity. These post-facto efforts were deemed by ruling bodies compelling enough to reduce sanctions imposed for match-fixing. This precedent of reducing on account of mitigating circumstances occurring after the match-fixing activity occurred poses two issues.

First, the precedent undermines the strict liability regime by allowing the reduction of a club’s liability where it fixes the problem ex post facto, thereby providing clubs with a loophole to escape with minimal harm. Second, the precedent does not consider the actual efficacy of the hired monitoring companies or their methods. Without a regulatory framework and established standards for monitoring companies and certification of their services, i.e. no way of assessing whether the hired companies actually make any difference when it comes to the prevalence of match-fixing, nothing separates effective monitoring from the appearance or claim of monitoring.

IV.           A Better Way of Evaluating Mitigating Circumstances

An adjudicatory body rightfully must consider the particular context of each case. Accurate and fair decisions acknowledge that not all cases concerning similar issues deserve equal treatment. Mitigating circumstances are an important aspect of any fair legal system. With Novara and Pro Patria, however, the appeal bodies erred by giving weight to certain post-incident mitigating circumstances that had no bearing on the issue at hand. Further, allowing the hire of a monitoring company to mitigate a club’s liability introduces a separate issue, i.e. the efficacy of the monitoring company and its services. Both appeal decisions reduced the capacity of strict liability to deter match-fixing. If a strict liability regime is to be effective in combatting match-fixing, then clear standards for evaluating mitigating circumstances in cases like Novara and Pro Patria are necessary.

Before proposing a way forward, it is important to first try and understand why the appeal decisions reduced the sanctions in the cases at hand. Inherent to the appeals’ justification is the doctrine of proportionality, or the notion that any punishment must fit the crime and cannot be more extreme than is warranted. In Novara and Pro Patria, it seems that the appeal bodies thought that the clubs’ liability for the conduct of their employees should be limited. In other words, while the appeal bodies certainly assigned liability to the clubs, they were unwilling to allow that liability to support too onerous sanctions.

This, of course, misses the point of strict liability in the first place. Strict liability is used to assign liability notwithstanding immediate fault because the liable party is best positioned to absorb the liability and/or work to prevent the wrongful conduct. Punishments for strict liability in match-fixing, if reduced to minimal amounts, do little to nothing to promote clubs to actively prevent match-fixing. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) re-affirms this point:

With regard to the alleged disproportionality of the Decision, the Panel first of all wishes to stress that the fight against match-fixing is considered to be extremely important for the purpose of preserving confidence in and the integrity of sport.[9]

Part of the proportionality calculus must be the severity of the wrongdoing concerned. Match-fixing is, arguably, the greatest wrong in sports. Therefore, hefty punishments should not violate proportionality. 

The Novara and Pro Patria appeal decisions also over-value the post-incident preventative actions (which is an oxymoron!). The treatment of post-incident actions as mitigating circumstances suggests future offenders will be able to correct wrongful conduct after-the-fact simply by hiring a company that claims to monitor match-fixing activity. Even if a club were to hire a monitoring company prior to any wrongful conduct, the mere signing of a contract with a monitoring company is generally a questionable preventative measure. Clubs that employ monitoring companies and are then subsequently charged with liability for match-fixing should only have sanctions (and thus liability) reduced if they prove to the court that the monitoring company undertook actual and sufficient efforts to monitor and prevent match-fixing.

Merely employing a monitoring company without any regard for the efficacy of its services is an inadequate escape route from strict liability. After all, these companies are unregulated and unaccredited; there is no guarantee that the companies do any work, or that any work the company performs is effective. At a minimum, then, a club must demonstrate that in conjunction with a monitoring company it undertook significant and adequate measures to prevent match-fixing by its employees and agents.

A standard for monitoring companies is important in light of the Novara and Pro Patria rulings, which will support a booming (and unregulated) market for monitoring companies. Clubs may now look to symbolically contract with these companies to escape liability if/when they are accused of match-fixing. The football community should not allow such a deregulated and opaque market to emerge.

V.             Conclusion

Match-fixing poses one of the most elemental dangers to professional football—it damages the credibility of the sport and could potentially damage the market. The doctrine of strict liability discourages a club’s participation in match-fixing activities, and incentivizes clubs to put into place measures that ensure their employees abide by anti-match-fixing regulations. Judges and tribunals must not lose sight of the broader picture when determining sanctions in match-fixing cases. In light of the Novara and Pro Patria decisions, this blog post offers a way forward to maintain strict liability’s capacity to effectively combat match-fixing: (1) post-incident efforts should not be considered as mitigating circumstances, and (2) monitoring companies and their services must meet a certain standard if they are to absolve, partially or fully, a club from its liability.

Strict liability can be effective so long as courts and tribunals do not unduly handicap it. Match-fixing is still a prominent threat in football and in sports in general. Now is not the time to weaken the most effective tool (strict liability) available to combat match-fixing. While the preceding discussion focuses on Italian football, the lessons are universal for all sports, at all levels.

[1] Case Her Majesty's Customs and Excise v. Gerhart Schindler and Jôrg Schindler, C-275/92 Judgement of 24th March 1994 [1994] ECR 1-01039.

[2] Unofficial translation from Italian: “Responsabilità delle società 1 […]; 2. Le società rispondono oggettivamente, ai fini disciplinari, dell'operato dei dirigenti, dei tesserati e dei soggetti di cui all’art. 1 bis, comma 5; 3 […]; 4 […] 5. Le società sono presunte responsabili degli illeciti sportivi commessi a loro vantaggio da persone a esse estranee. La responsabilità è esclusa quando risulti o vi sia un ragionevole dubbio che la società non abbia partecipato all'illecito o lo abbia ignorato; 6 […].”

[3] “Committing, by any means, acts to alter the development or outcome of a match or competition or to assure any advantages in the ranking constitutes a sporting wrongdoing.” Unofficial translation from Italian: “1. Il compimento, con qualsiasi mezzo, di atti diretti ad alterare lo svolgimento o il risultato di una gara o di una competizione ovvero ad assicurare a chiunque un vantaggio in classifica costituisce illecito sportivo.”

[4] Art. 7, par. 4: It is considered the strict liability of a club in the sense of art. 4, par. 5 and the fact is punishable subject to the degree of fault, with the sanctions foreseen in art. 18, par. 1 sections (g), (h), (i), (l), and (m). Unofficial translation from Italian: “Se viene accertata la responsabilità oggettiva o presunta della società ai sensi dell'art. 4, comma 5, il fatto è punito, a seconda della sua gravità, con le sanzioni di cui alle lettere g), h), i), l), m) dell’art. 18, comma 1.” The sanctions consist, broadly speaking, in the deduction of points, to be sent to the bottom of the table, to be disqualified from the competition, to have a tittle taken away or the barred from participating in a specific competition.

[5] The sport prosecutor had sought a six-point deduction.

[6] Unofficial translation from Italian: “A ciò conduce una più attenta valutazione della complessiva condotta della reclamante, di tutta la attività da questa posta in essere, invero tanto in via preventiva che successiva ed espressamente finalizzata a combattere il fenomeno degli illeciti sportivi ovvero ad eliminarne le conseguenze… In questo ambito vanno riassuntivamente richiamati, tra gli altri interventi, l’approvazione da parte del Novara Calcio del primo modello organizzativo ex decreto legislativo n. 231/01 e relativo Codice etico; l’approvazione nel gennaio del 2012 di un nuovo modello organizzazione e di gestione; il conseguimento nel marzo ancora di quest’anno di certificazione di qualità ISO 9001:2008 come prima società calcistica in Italia; l’aver affidato nel febbraio 2012 a soggetto professionale lo studio dell’andamento delle quote di scommesse legate alle partite che avrebbe giocato il Novara da quel momento alla fine del campionato, successivamente deliberando di continuare l’opera di monitoraggio delle partite; disciplinando infine tale sistema con l’adozione di un Codice Antifrode.”

[7] The sport prosecutor sought a twenty-point reduction as an exemplary punishment and to increase its deterrent effect.

[8] Federazione Italiana Giouco Calcio; COMUNICATO UFFICIALE N. 48/TFN – Sezione Disciplinare (2015/2016), p. 81.

[9] CAS 2013/A/3297 Public Joint-Stock Company “Football Club Metalist” v. UEFA & PAOK FC, award of 29 November 2013. (Case about match-fixing and sanctions under UEFA rules.)

Forget the European Championship currently held in France or the upcoming Olympic Games in Rio. Doping scandals are making the headlines more than ever in 2016. From tennis star Sharapova receiving a two-year ban for her use of the controversial ‘meldonium’, to the seemingly never-ending doping scandals in athletics. As if this was not enough, a new chapter was added on 14 June to one of the most infamous and obscure doping sagas in history: the Operación Puerto.

The special criminal appeal chamber,  the Audiencia Provincial, has held that the more than 200 blood bags of professional athletes that have been at the center of the investigations since 2006 can be delivered to the relevant sporting authorities, such as the Spanish Anti-Doping Agency (AEPSAD), WADA, the UCI and the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI). In other words, there is now a good chance that the identities of the involved athletes might eventually be revealed.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9834122/Operation-Puerto-doctor-Eufemiano-Fuentes-treated-tennis-players-athletes-footballers-and-a-boxer.html

This case note will analyze the court’s ruling and summarize its most important findings. Given the amount of time passed since the scandal first came to light (2004), the blog will commence with a short background summary of the relevant facts. 

Background

The saga can be traced back to the interview by the Spanish sports newspaper AS with the cyclist Jesus Manzano in 2004. During the interview, Manzano admitted that he, as well as other members of his team (Kelme), were involved in blood doping practices, and denounced his team doctor Eufemiano Fuentes as the mastermind behind the operations.[1] As a result of his declarations, Manzano became the victim of regular abuse by the “professional cycling world” and even received death threats. Manzano reported the death threats to the Guardia Civil (a Spanish law enforcement agency), who saw itself obliged to investigate the matter. The results of the Guardia Civil’s investigation proved that the information provided by Manzano regarding names, locations and practices were correct. However, the scope of the Guardia Civil’s investigations was limited due to the fact that, according to Spanish law in force at the time, doping was not considered a criminal offence.

On 23 May 2006, several people were arrested, including doctor Fuentes, who was accused of committing a “crime against public health” enshrined in Article 361 of the Spanish Criminal Code.[2] After his arrest, the Guardia Civil conducted domiciliary visits in the various domiciles owned by Fuentes, in which it found over 200 blood and plasma samples. The blood and plasma bags were labelled with coded names, in order not to reveal the true identity of Fuentes’ clients. Nonetheless, it was clear that Fuentes’ network was much more extensive than previously anticipated and that he had hundreds of clients, from a variety of sports and nationalities.

The relevant SGBs, such as WADA, petitioned for the blood samples to be analysed and all the identities revealed, with the aim of sanctioning the athletes involved. The Spanish public authorities, however, denied the SGBs requests[3], claiming that handing over the blood samples would breach the athletes’ right to privacy and reiterating that athletes involved in doping practices were not (at the time) committing any criminal offence according to Spanish law.

A long-awaited judgment was finally delivered[4] by the Madrid criminal court on 29 April 2013, a judgment which raised many eyebrows worldwide (see for example this critical analysis by the French newspaper Le Monde). Fuentes received a one-year prison sentence for committing a crime against public health and was suspended for four years from practicing sport medicine. More importantly, the court ordered the destruction of the blood samples, as well as other pieces of evidence, such as documents and recorded telephone conversations once the decision becomes final.[5] Given that the case was not about a doping offense but about a crime against public health, the court argued, the investigation of the blood samples would be in breach of the privacy rights of the athletes.

The judgment was appealed by several parties, including Fuentes and the SGBs (AEPSAD, WADA, UCI and CONI). Fuentes demanded to be acquitted, whereas the SGBs appealed the order to have the blood samples destroyed.  

Sentencia Nº 302/2016 of 14 June 2016

The Audiencia Provincial made its judgment public on 14 June 2016. The judgment consists of 23 different appeals by different parties. This case note, however, will only analyze section 18 (on the question whether blood is considered a medicine) and section 21 (regarding the blood and plasma samples). 

Section 18 – Is blood a medicine?

The answer to this question was highly relevant for Fuentes’ appeal against the prison sentence. Article 361 of the Spanish Criminal Code provides inter alia that a person who offers medicine in unauthorized locations[6] or does not fulfill the relevant hygiene criteria, shall be punished with an imprisonment from six months to three years.[7] Fuentes argued that blood extracted from an athlete, which is later injected back into the athlete, was legally not considered a medicine in 2006.

The court firstly established that the Criminal Code does not legally define “medicine”, meaning that the definition needed to be found in administrative laws,[8] such as the Medicine Law[9]. This law stipulates that blood derivatives could be considered medicine, but blood as a whole cannot.[10] The court also looked for a definition in EU law, more specifically EU Council Directive 98/381/CEE laying down special provisions for medicinal products derived from human blood or human plasma. Article 1, point 2, holds that whole blood, plasma or blood cells of human origin are outside the scope of the Directive. Having established that the blood and plasma samples found in Fuentes’ domiciles cannot be considered medicine, the court concluded that the doctor could subsequently not be punished for committing a crime against public health as stipulated in Article 361 of the Criminal Code. A punishment of any kind would be contrary to the “principle of legality”.[11] 

Section 21 – blood and plasma samples

The RFEC, WADA, UCI and CONI wanted to see the destruction order of the blood and plasma samples overturned and, instead, the samples delivered to them.[12]  Importantly, both the criminal court in first instance and the Audiencia Provincial recognized that a possible doping investigation by the SGBs after a handover of the blood samples would be an administrative procedure, rather than a criminal procedure such as in the case at hand.[13]

However, the first instance court had also indicated that the SGBs could not use the blood samples, because administrative sanctioning procedures do not allow this type of evidence to be used. To reach this conclusion, the court in first instance referred to an administrative law case involving disciplinary proceedings against a magistrate. In that case, recorded phone conversations were not deemed receivable evidence because of a breach of privacy, which would infringe Article 8 of the ECHR. The court transposed this reasoning to Operación Puerto and held that using the blood samples for an administrative proceeding was inadmissible.

The Audiencia Provincial did not follow this reasoning. Instead it referred to criminal case law, which established a difference between the recording of phone conversations on the one hand and domiciliary visits on the other. So-called “casual findings” during domiciliary visits of evidence for crimes that were not the ones the visits were authorized for, can still be used as evidence. In fact, the blood and plasma bags cannot be considered “casual findings”, since the public authorities were authorized to undertake the domiciliary visits to find evidence for an alleged crime against public health. Moreover, contrary to the recording of phone conversations which is only authorized in case of a penal procedure, domiciliary visits are measures that could also be authorized in administrative procedures.[14]  In other words, this type of evidence obtained in the framework of a criminal procedure can also be used in an administrative disciplinary procedure, such as doping cases.

As regards the transfer of the blood and plasma samples to an SGB, the court stated the following: In accordance with the provisions of the 2013 anti-doping laws, the samples can be handed over to the Spanish Anti-Doping Agency. The Agency would need to submit a formal request to a court, and the court would consider the request taking into account the principle of proportionality.[15]  The Audiencia Provincial considers that a transfer of the blood samples could be proportionate since it pursues the objective of fighting against doping. This is so because: doping use is contrary to the ethical values of sport, which are fair play and competition. Not allowing the transfer of the blood and plasma samples would give the impression that doping is not really a problem and might indicate that in sports the end justify the means.[16]  

Conclusion

On the day the judgment was released, AEPSAD expressed its satisfaction with the Audiencia Provincial’s decision and stated that it is studying the possible measures it can now take, either by itself or together with the other SGBs referred to in the judgment. WADA too acknowledged the court “for having reached the decision to provide anti-doping authorities with this crucial evidence”, but also stated that it is “dismayed that it took so long to receive the decision”. Finally, UCI regrets it had to wait this long for the decision, but will now partner with WADA, the RFEC, AEPSAD and CONI, to determine the legal options available with regards to analyzing the blood and plasma bags; and, where applicable, pursuing anti-doping rule violations.

In its press release, UCI points to the crucial question that will need an (un)satisfying answer: Can the SGBs still pursue anti-doping violations, or is too late? Article 17 of the 2015 WADA Code enshrines that the statute of limitations is 10 years. Coincidentally, it has been 10 years and two months since the arrests of Fuentes was made and Operación Puerto started taking shape. It is therefore unlikely that doping sanctions will be handed out on the basis of blood samples collected during the period 2002-2006. But simply discovering the identity of the doped athletes could have far-reaching consequences on its own. For example, when Bjarne Riis admitted in 2007 that he used EPO during his victorious 1996 Tour de France, the UCI was not able to sanction him anymore. However, the Tour de France organizing organization (ASO) has removed him as a past winner. Similar consequences are thinkable with the discoveries of the identities in the Operación Puerto case. Furthermore, Operación Puerto, widely recognized as the darkest chapter in the history of Spanish professional sport, can only truly be closed when the identities of the athletes are revealed. Publicly naming and shaming the athletes is an important mean to create a fairer competition and to prevent other athletes from doping themselves.  

[1] The actual interview with AS is not available anymore. A summary of the interview can be read at http://velonews.competitor.com/2004/03/news/more-from-manzano-its-like-an-open-bar_5763.

[2] Sentencia de la Audiencia Provincial de Madrid Nº 302/2016 de 10 de junio 2016, page 7. A few months later, in 2006, Article 361bis was added to the Spanish Penal Code, a provision that made doping a criminal offense.

[3] Cyclists, such as Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso, Michele Scarponi and Óscar Sevilla were known to be among Fuentes’ clients, for the most part thanks to journalist investigations. The German cyclist Jörg Jaksche admitted voluntarily, and Spanish cyclist Alejandro Valverde received a suspension by the Italian Olympic Committee CONI in 2010.

[4] As can be seen from the 176-page judgment, the names of the suspects have been changed. For example, primary suspect Eufemanio Fuentes is called “Juan Máximo”.

[5] Sentencia del Juzgado Penal de Madrid Nº 144/203 de 29 de abril 2013, pages 175-176.

[6] A hospital, for example, would be considered an authorized location. A cycling team bus, or a hotel room, could be considered unauthorized locations for the offering of certain types of medicine.

[7] Artículo 361 Código Penal: “El que fabrique, importe, exporte, suministre, intermedie, comercialice, ofrezca o ponga en el mercado, o almacene con estas finalidades, medicamentos, incluidos los de uso humano y veterinario, así como los medicamentos en investigación, que carezcan de la necesaria autorización exigida por la ley, o productos sanitarios que no dispongan de los documentos de conformidad exigidos por las disposiciones de carácter general, o que estuvieran deteriorados, caducados o incumplieran las exigencias técnicas relativas a su composición, estabilidad y eficacia, y con ello se genere un riesgo para la vida o la salud de las personas, será castigado con una pena de prisión de seis meses a tres años, multa de seis a doce meses e inhabilitación especial para profesión u oficio de seis meses a tres años”.

[8] Sentencia de la Audiencia Provincial de Madrid Nº 302/2016 de 10 de junio 2016, page 61.

[9] Ley 25/1990, de 20 de diciembre, del Medicamento.

[10] Sentencia de la Audiencia Provincial de Madrid Nº 302/2016 de 10 de junio 2016, pages 59-61.

[11] Ibid., pages 69-73.

[12] Ibid., pages 76-77.

[13] Ibid., pages 78-79.

[14] Ibid., pages 80-81.

[15] Artículo 33(5) de la Ley Orgánica 3/2013, de 20 de junio, de protección de la salud del deportista y lucha contra el dopaje en la actividad deportiva: “La Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte podrá solicitar que le sean remitidas aquellas diligencias de instrucción practicadas que sean necesarias para la continuación de los procedimientos sancionadores. Dicha petición será resuelta por el Juez de instrucción, previa audiencia de los interesados, en el plazo de 20 días. En dicha audiencia los interesados podrán solicitar que sean también remitidos los documentos que les puedan beneficiar. La resolución del Juez será plenamente respetuosa con el principio de proporcionalidad, entregando a la Administración, mediante resolución motivada, únicamente las diligencias que la aplicación de tal principio autorice”.

[16] Sentencia de la Audiencia Provincial de Madrid Nº 302/2016 de 10 de junio 2016, page 83.

Introduction: The new WADA Code 2015
Day 1: The impact of the revised World Anti-Doping Code on the work of National Anti-Doping Agencies
Day 2: The “Athlete Patient” and the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code: Competing Under Medical Treatment
Day 3: Proof of intent (or lack thereof) under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code

Editor's note
Mike Morgan is the founding partner of Morgan Sports Law LLP. His practice is focused exclusively on the sports sector. He advises on regulatory and disciplinary issues and has particular experience advising on doping and corruption disputes.

Mike acted on behalf of National Olympic Committees at three of the last four Olympic Games and has represented other sports bodies, clubs and high profile athletes in proceedings before the High Court, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, the American Arbitration Association and the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

I. Introduction

According to the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”), the 2015 World Anti-Doping Agency Code (the “2015 Code”), which came into effect on 1 January 2015,  is a “stronger, more robust tool that will protect the rights of the clean athletes”[1]. Among the key themes of the revised Code, is the promise of “longer periods of Ineligibility for real cheats, and more flexibility in sanctioning in other specific circumstances”[2].

While Article 10 of the 2015 Code unquestionably provides for longer periods of ineligibility, the validity of WADA’s claim that the harsher sanctions will be reserved for “real cheats” depends partly on how one defines the term “real cheat”, and partly on how the 2015 Code’s mechanisms for reducing sanctions are to be interpreted.

This blog reflects on the totality of the context from which the current sanctions regime arose.  That is important because Article 10 will have to be applied in a manner consistent with that context in mind if the 2015 Code is to become the tool promised by WADA and if it is to avoid the scrutiny of the courts.

II. Context

A.   Katrin Krabbe

In the lead up to the adoption of the first version of the WADA Code (the “2003 Code”), there was considerable debate as to what length of sanction could lawfully be imposed on an athlete for a first violation[3].

The decision finally to settle on a two-year ban for first offences was heavily influenced by the findings of the Munich Courts in the case of Katrin Krabbe, that a suspension exceeding two years was disproportionate[4]:

(a)           The Regional Court held that a two-year suspension imposed on an athlete for a first offence “represents the highest threshold admissible under fundamental rights and democratic principles”.[5]

(b)           The High Regional Court held that the three-year ban imposed by the IAAF “was excessive in respect of its objective. Such a rigid disciplinary measure as a sanction for a first sports offence is inappropriate and disproportionate”.[6]

And so it came to pass that a first violation under Article 10.2 of the 2003 Code would be punished with a two-year sanction. Various legal opinions procured by WADA between 2003 and 2008 affirmed the position that a two-year sanction for a first violation (1) was a significant incursion on the rights of the individual affected; and (2) was likely the limit of the severity that could be imposed in the absence of aggravating circumstances[7].

B.   Specified Substances

The 2003 Code proved somewhat inflexible, which resulted in two-year bans for unintentional and minor anti-doping rule violations. One of the starkest examples of that inflexibility arose in CAS OG 04/003 Torri Edwards v IAAF & USATF.

Edwards had consumed glucose powder that, unbeknownst to her, contained the stimulant nikethamide. A two-year ban was imposed on her on the basis that she could not meet the thresholds for “No Fault” and “No Significant Fault” and despite the fact that she had, in the words of the CAS panel, “conducted herself with honesty, integrity and character, and that she has not sought to gain any improper advantage or to ‘cheat’ in any way”[8].

Ms Edwards’ case became a cause célèbre, leading the IAAF to lobby WADA to have nikethamide and other similar stimulants reclassified as Specified Substances. The then vice-president of the IAAF, Dr Arne Lungqvist explained as follows:

I asked Torri Edwards whether she would allow me to use her case as an example of the importance of making some sort of differentiation between those weak stimulants that you can get over the counter by accident, carelessness, negligence or whatever.  We are not after those who are negligent.

WADA acceded to the IAAF’s lobbying and downgraded nikethamide to the Specified Substance list in September 2005. The IAAF Council shortly thereafter reinstated Edwards to competition further to the doctrine of lex mitior. Following Edwards’ reinstatement, Dr Lungqvist explained as follows:

The IAAF wishes to see strong penalties for real cheats. This was a different case, […]  I did not feel comfortable when I had to defend the then-existing rules against her at the CAS hearing in Athens.

I judge that Torri has paid a high price for having inadvertently taken a particular substance at the 'wrong' time, shortly before [the reclassification] and from now on such an intake would result in a warning only. (Emphasis added)

Four years later, WADA went one step further and, with the introduction of the 2009 version of the WADA Code (the “2009 Code”), broadened the list of substances that would be categorised as Specified Substances, promising “lessened sanctions….where the athlete can establish that the substance involved was not intended to enhance performance” under Article 10.4[10].  

The aim was to avoid the likes of the Edwards case. Indeed, a number of cases determined under the 2009 Code which involved the same glucose brand that had landed Edwards with a two-year ban in 2004, resulted in periods of ineligibility ranging between 0 – 6 months[11].

C.   The rise and fall of “aggravating circumstances”

The primary themes of the 2009 Code were, according to WADA, “firmness and fairness”. “Fairness” was to be reflected by the broadening of the Specified Substance list, while “firmness” was intended to manifest itself through the concept of “aggravating circumstances” [12].  

The presence of “aggravated circumstances” permitted Anti-Doping Organizations (“ADOs”) to increase periods of ineligibility beyond the standard two-year ban up to a maximum of four years[13].

A legal opinion commissioned by WADA in relation to the “aggravated circumstances” provisions (the “Third WADA Legal Opinion”) noted as follows[14]:

91. […] it is clear that the intention to enhance performance is not in and-of-itself an aggravating circumstance.

92. […] This provision makes it clear that cheating is an important element of the notion of aggravating circumstances. However, the mere fact of cheating alone is not sufficient. Additional elements are required.

93. The essence of the concept of aggravating circumstances is thus a qualified kind of cheating, which involves an additional element. (Emphasis added)

Not only, therefore, was actual cheating required to invoke the provision but there needed to be something more than the mere fact of cheating. Examples provided by the 2009 Code included being part of a doping scheme or using multiple prohibited substances[15]. 

The “aggravated circumstances” provision was rarely invoked and, when it was, it rarely resulted in the maximum increase[16]. That ultimately led to the removal of the “aggravated circumstances” provision from the 2015 Code and the introduction of standard four-year sanctions, explained as follows by WADA[17]:

There was a strong consensus among stakeholders, and in particular, Athletes, that intentional cheaters should be Ineligible for a period of four years.  Under the current Code, there is the opportunity for a four-year period of Ineligibility for an Adverse Analytical Finding if the Anti-Doping Organization can show “Aggravating Circumstances.” However, in the more than four years since that provision has been part of the Code, it has been rarely used. (Emphasis added)

The decision to double the standard two-year sanctions to four years may have surprised anyone who had ever read the Third WADA Legal Opinion, since that opinion had expressly cautioned as follows:

138. […] one should bear in mind that a four-year ban would most often put an end to an athlete’s (high level) career and thus be tantamount to a life ban. Therefore, an aggravated first offence could de facto be punished as harshly as numerous second offences (Article 10.7.1) and almost all third offences (Article 10.7.3).

139. This could raise problems if the ineligibility period were automatically of four years in the presence of aggravating circumstances. In reality, Art. 10.6 provides for an increased suspension of up to four years, which means that the adjudicating body is afforded sufficient flexibility to take into account all the circumstances to ensure that aggravating circumstances do not systematically result in a four-year period of ineligibility. (Emphasis added)

D.   Proportionality

The principle of proportionality plays an important role in the determination of sanctions applicable in doping matters. The principle pervades Swiss law[18], EU law[19] and general principles of (sports) law[20].  

The CAS itself has consistently measured sanctions imposed on athletes against the principle of proportionality both before the inception of the WADA Code and since.

(a)           Pre-WADA Code: the anti-doping rules of many sports prior to the creation of the WADA Code mandated fixed sanctions without the possibility of reductions. The CAS nevertheless sometimes reduced these sanctions on the basis they were not proportionate.[21]

(b)           Post-WADA Code: The WADA Code introduced mechanisms by which sanctions could be reduced or eliminated.  However, the CAS has made clear that the introduction of these mechanisms does not remove the obligation of disciplinary panels to measure the sanctions applied in any particular case against the principle of proportionality. In CAS 2005/A/830 Squizzato v. FINA, the CAS held that:

10.24 […] the Panel holds that the mere adoption of the WADA Code […] by a respective Federation does not force the conclusion that there is no other possibility for greater or less reduction a sanction than allowed by DC 10.5. The mere fact that regulations of a sport federation derive from the World Anti-Doping Code does not change the nature of these rules. They are still – like before – regulations of an association which cannot (directly or indirectly) replace fundamental and general legal principles like the doctrine of proportionality a priori for every thinkable case.

Though the 2015 Code asserts that it “has been drafted giving consideration to the principles of proportionality and human rights”[22], that obviously does not mean that proportionality no longer plays a part in the assessment of sanctions for the same reasons propounded by the CAS in Squizzato. Indeed, the 2015 Code itself recognises that it “is intended to be applied in a manner which respects the principles of proportionality and human rights”[23]. Moreover, the most recent CAS decisions in which the principle of proportionality was applied concerned the sanctioning regimes of the 2003 and 2009 Code, both of which mandated default sanctions of two years, not four years[24].  The principle of proportionality is, therefore, arguably even more relevant now than it previously was.

III. Comment

While the 2015 Code does have more mechanisms by which to modify the default sanctions than in previous versions of the WADA Code, that is partly because the default sanctions with regards to most of the violations have doubled[25]:

Athletes accused of committing a violation under Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 or 2.6 are now in a position in which they are required to meet the Article 10.2 thresholds regarding “intent” simply to get them back to the two-year default sanctions that would have applied under previous versions of the Code[26].

If the 2015 Code is to become the tool promised by WADA and if it is to avoid or survive legal challenges, tribunals will need to ensure that their interpretations of the reduction mechanisms, such as those contained at Article 10.2, do not result in disproportionate sanctions.

The parameters within which the proportionality of a sanction falls to be measured were described as follows by the panel in CAS 2005/C/976 & 986 FIFA & WADA:

139. A long series of CAS decisions have developed the principle of proportionality in sport cases. This principle provides that the severity of a sanction must be proportionate to the offense committed. To be proportionate, the sanction must not exceed that which is reasonably required in the search of the justifiable aim. (Emphasis added)

The evaluation of whether a sanction is proportionate therefore begins with the identification of the “justifiable aim”. According to WADA, the increased sanctions were intended to target “intentional cheats”. That is echoed by the wording of Article 10.2.3 of the 2015 Code, which provides as follows:  

As used in Articles 10.2 and 10.3, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes who cheat. The term, therefore, requires that the athlete or other Person engaged in conduct which he or she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk [….] (Emphasis added)

The final sentence emphasised above is, arguably, open to interpretation.  However, the first line identifies the overarching aim of the provision – i.e. “the term ‘intentional’ is meant to identify those athletes who cheat”.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a “cheat” is a “person who behaves dishonestly in order to gain an advantage” and the act of “cheating” amounts to “a fraud or deception”.  A reasonable inference, therefore, is that athletes who “cheat” are athletes who have acted knowingly and dishonestly to gain an unfair advantage.

Article 10.2 cannot, therefore, be intended to punish careless athletes.  Bearing in mind the limits pronounced by the courts in Krabbe and bearing in mind the “justifiable aim”, any interpretation of the provision that would result in a four-year ban for nothing more than careless – or even reckless, but otherwise honest - conduct would risk inviting the sort of scrutiny exercised by the German courts in the Pechstein[27] and Krabbe cases.

Likewise, the interpretation of the other reduction mechanisms, such as Article 10.5 (“No Significant Fault or Negligence”), will require the same degree of pragmatism.  If the parameters for “No Significant Fault” were to be applied as strictly today as they were in the Edwards case, anti-doping would end up right back to where it was in 2004, when the Code’s sanctioning regime was perceived to be so inflexible that it had to be overhauled in 2009. Assuming that the aim of the 2015 Code is not to take 11 years’ worth of backward steps, tribunals will have to ensure that “No Significant Fault” is interpreted in a manner that fulfils WADA’s promise of “greater flexibility”, particularly in cases involving Specified Substances and Contaminated Products[28].

IV. Concluding Remark

The 2015 Code has the potential to become the fairest WADA Code to date. However, it also has the potential to be the cruelest. Interpreting it in a manner consistent with the totality of the context from which it was conceived is the surest way to ensure that the right version prevails.

[1] https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/the-code

[2] https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wadc-2015-draft-version-4.0-significant-changes-to-2009-en.pdf

[3] See (1) http://library.la84.org/OlympicInformationCenter/OlympicReview/1999/OREXXVI26/OREXXVI26s.pdf; and (2) http://library.la84.org/OlympicInformationCenter/OlympicReview/1999/OREXXVI26/OREXXVI26t.pdf

[4] See Kaufmann-Kohler, G., Rigozzi, A., and Malinverni, G., “Doping and fundamental rights of athletes: comments in the wake of the adoption of the World Anti-Doping Code”, I.S.L.R. 2003, 3(Aug), 39–67 *61

[5] Krabbe v. IAAF et. al., Decision of the LG Munich of 17 May 1995, SpuRt 1995 p. 161, p. 167

[6] Krabbe v. IAAF et. al., Decision of the OLG Munich of 28 March 1996, SpuRt 1996 p. 133, 138

[7] See (1) Legal Opinion on the Conformity of Certain Provisions of the Draft World Anti-Doping Code with Commonly Accepted Principles of International Law, dated 23 February 2003, paragraphs 142 and 143; (2) Legal Opinion on whether Article 10.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code is compatible with the Fundamental Principles of Swiss Domestic Law, dated 25 October 2005, paragraph 3 (b) (aa) at page 26 and paragraph 3. (f) (aa) at page 32; and (3) Legal Opinion on the Conformity of Article 10.6 of the 2007 Draft World Anti-Doping Code with the Fundamental Rights of Athletes, dated 13 November 2007, at paragraphs 33, 114, 138 and 139

[8] See paragraph 5.8 of CAS OG 04/003 Torri Edwards v IAAF & USATF

[9] See IAAF press release dated 22 November 2005

[10] 2009 Code, Article 10.4 (“Elimination or Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances”)

[11] See (1) CAS 2011/A/2493 Antidoping Switzerland v/ X; (2) CAS 2013/A/3327 Marin Cilic v. International Tennis Federation & CAS 2013/A/3335 International Tennis Federation v. Marin Cilic; (3) AFLD Decision No. 2011-71 dated 7 July 2011; (4) AFLD Decision No. 2009-50 dated 10 December 2009

[12] Article 10.6 of the 2009 WADA Code (Aggravating Circumstances Which May Increase the Period of Ineligibility)

[13] Note that Violations under Articles 2.7 (Trafficking) and 2.8 (Administration) were not subject to the application of Article 10.6 since the sanctions for those violations (four years to life) already allowed discretion for aggravating circumstances

[14] Legal Opinion on the Conformity of Article 10.6 of the 2007 Draft World Anti-Doping Code with the Fundamental Rights of Athletes, dated 13 November 2007

[15] See commentary to Article 10.6 of the 2009 Code

[16] See CAS 2013/A/3080 Alemitu Bekele Degfa v. TAF and lAAF for a detailed assessment by the CAS of the “aggravated circumstances” provision

[17] WADA, Significant Changes between the 2009 Code and the 2015 Code, Version 4.0, 1 September 2013

[18] See paragraph 124 of CAS 2005/C/976 & 986 FIFA & WADA

[19] See paragraphs 47 and 48 of Case C-519/04 P Meca-Medina & Majcen v Commission [2006] ECR I-6991

[20] See paragraph 83 of the First WADA Legal Opinion

[21] See (1) CAS 1996/56 Foschi v. FINA; (2) CAS 2002/A/396 Baxter v. FIS; (3) CAS 2001/A/337 B. / FINA

[22] See page 11 of the 2015 Code - “Purpose, Scope and Organization of the World Anti-Doping Program and the Code”

[23] See the Introduction at page 17 of the 2015 Code

[24] See, for instance (1) CAS 2010/A/2268 I. v. FIA; and (2) TAS 2007/A/1252 FINA c. O. Mellouli & FTN

[25] Note that the table only reflects the default sanctions applicable before consideration of any of the mechanisms intended to increase or decrease those sanctions

[26] Note that article 10.2 only applies to those violations. For a detailed assessment of Article 10.2, see Rigozzi, Antonio and Haas, Ulrich and Wisnosky, Emily and Viret, Marjolaine, Breaking Down the Process for Determining a Basic Sanction Under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code (June 10, 2015). ISLJ, (2015) 15:3-48

[27] See (1) Landesgericht (LG) München, 26. February 2014, 37 O 28331/12; and (2) Oberlandesgericht (OLG) München, 15 January 2015, Az. U 1110/14 Kart

[28] Notably, the concept of “No Significant Fault or Negligence” in previous versions of the Code was limited to ‘‘exceptional circumstances’’. That limitation has been removed in the context of Specified Substances and Contaminated Products under Article 10.5.1 of the 2015 Code. Thus, it should now be easier for athletes to trigger the application of “No Significant Fault” in those types of cases than it previously was. See Section 6.2 of Rigozzi et al for a detailed discussion of the point