The editor’s note:

Two weeks ago we received the unpublished CAS award rendered in the Eskişehirspor case and decided to comment on it. In this post Thalia Diathesopoulou (Intern at the ASSER International Sports Law Centre) analyses the legal steps followed and interpretations adopted by CAS panels in this case and in a series of other Turkish match-fixing cases. The first part of the post will deal with the question of the legal nature of the ineligibility decision opposed by UEFA to clubs involved in one way or another into match-fixing and with the personal and material scope of UEFA’s rule on which this ineligibility is based. The second part is dedicated to the procedural rules applied in match-fixing cases.

Introduction

The unpredictability of the outcome is a sine qua non feature of sports. It is this inherent uncertainty that draws the line between sports and entertainment and triggers the interest of spectators, broadcasters and sponsors. Thus, match-fixing by jeopardising the integrity and unpredictability of sporting outcomes has been described, along with doping, as one of the major threats to modern sport.[1] 

It does not come as a surprise, therefore, that the fight against match-fixing has been elevated over the past years to a general interest issue, being also included in European Commission’s Agenda on sports as a priority. The urge to protect the integrity of sport, has stimulated the adoption by sports-governing bodies, and especially UEFA and FIFA, of regulations specifically intended to combat match-fixing. The evolution of UEFA Disciplinary Regulations (UEFA DR) in the last 10 years has been remarkable: it follows a path from a broad capture of match-fixing conduct by reference to the general values of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship[2] in the 2004 version, to the explicit - first ever- reference to the offence of match-fixing in the revised 2013 edition.[3]

In this context, the CAS has been called to implement these rules in a series of match-fixing cases. Especially Turkey’s unprecedented match-fixing scandal in 2011 led to a series of important CAS awards tackling match-fixing. The latest episode of this Turkish series was written on 2 September 2014: following Fenerbahçe and Besiktas, it was Eskişehirspor’s turn to face a CAS ruling on a match-fixing related case.

CAS jurisprudence on match-fixing being in its infancy, the approach of the CAS panels towards procedural, evidentiary and matters of substance in match-fixing disputes is still uncertain. Considering the magnitude of the match-fixing threat and the CAS role as a ‘cartographer’ of the so called lex sportiva, it is worthwhile to monitor the emerging trends of CAS on these integrity-related issues. This blog series will, therefore, use the Turkish cases as a vehicle in order to build a legal roadmap in match-fixing cases and shed light on four issues that have been extensively addressed in recent CAS jurisprudence: the qualification of the legal nature of the measure of ineligibility as a result of a Club’s involvement in match-fixing, the scope of application of this measure, the standard of proof to be applied and, finally, the admissibility of evidence in match-fixing cases

Particularly, two substantial problems that emerged in match-fixing disputes, i.e. the legal qualification of the match-fixing related measure of ineligibility under Article 2.08 of the UEL Regulations as administrative or disciplinary measure (1) and the scope of application of Article 2.08 (2), will constitute the axes of this first blog series. 

The 2011 Turkish match-fixing series in brief

In the summer of 2011, following Turkish’s police investigation into 19 football matches suspected of being fixed, 61 individuals were arrested, including club managers and Turkish national players. Fenerbahçe, Besiktas and Eskişehirspor were connected with match-fixing allegations in domestic tournaments in 2011.

Istanbul giant Fenerbahçe was at the epicentre of this match-fixing scandal, with its Chairman, Aziz Yildirim, being convicted by Istanbul’s 16^th High Criminal Court of establishing and leading a criminal organisation, which rigged four games and offered payments to players or rival clubs to fix three others. Particularly, among other matches, it was found that under the leadership of the then President of Fenerbahçe, match-fixing agreements were made for the matches of Eskişehirspor against Fenerbahçe and Eskişehirspor against Trabzonspor dating from 9 April 2011 and 22 April 2011 respectively. The Eskişehirspor head coach and the player were found guilty for match-fixing in the match with Trabzonspor and were sentenced to imprisonment. Furthermore, the High Criminal Court convicted Besiktas’ Officials of match-fixing activities with regard to the Final Cup played between Besiktas and Istanbul BB on 11 May 2011.

As a result of this alleged match-fixing involvement Fenerbahçe was banned by the Turkish Football Federation (TFF) from participating in the 2011-2012 CL. Later on, the 25 July 2013, Fenerbahçe was found ineligible by the UEFA Appeals Body (UAB) to participate in the next two UEFA club competitions including the 2013/14 UEFA CL, since it could not comply with the UEFA Champions League (UEL) admission requirements. Similarly, Besiktas and Eskişehirspor, in 2013 and 2014 respectively, were considered by the UAB ineligible to participate in the next UEL season, on the grounds of a breach of the UEL admission criteria and particularly of Article 2.08.

A next round of proceedings was brought before the CAS. On 28 and 30 August 2013, the CAS rejected Fenerbahçe’s and Besictas’ appeals.[4] One year later, on 2 September 2014, Eskişehirspor faced the same fate. Interestingly enough, the Eskişehirspor panel was the first CAS panel to deal with the sanction of a club victim of a match-fixing arrangement.

The outcome of the Turkish cases is not necessarily surprising. The CAS practice has been consistently embracing the UEFA zero tolerance policy against match-fixing. However, the legal reasoning followed by CAS to reach a similar outcome differs significantly fostering legal uncertainty in the match-fixing context. At this point, therefore, this blog post will attempt to map the reasoning of the CAS over the following thorny issues which were particularly raised in the Turkish cases: the legal nature of the measure of ineligibility under Article 2.08 of the UEL Regulations (1) and the scope of application of Article 2.08 (2).   

Qualifying Article 2.08 UEL Regulations: administrative measure or disciplinary sanction?

At a first glance, the question of the legal nature of the ineligibility measure of Article 2.08 is rather theoretical, but it also bears important practical implications. The identification of the legal nature of Article 2.08 as administrative or disciplinary determines ‘how this measure shall be applied and under which legal principles’.[5] In other words, the characterization of the measure of Article 2.08 as a disciplinary one may trigger the application of UEFA Disciplinary regulations, including the strict liability principle and the possibility of issuance of a probationary period. Before proceeding with our analysis, it should be pointed out that the Fenerbahçe case, deals with the legal nature of Article 2.05 UEFA Champions League Regulations (UCLR). However, since the wording of Article 2.05 UCLR and Article 2.08 UELR is exactly the same, the panel’s findings are transposable.

When qualifying the legal nature of the ineligibility measure in match-fixing disputes, the Fenerbahçe,Besiktas and Eskişehirspor panels used as a landmark the well-established distinction between administrative acts and disciplinary measures.[6] This is the common point of reference for the three cases, which thereafter differentiates in the interpretation of the ineligibility measure.

In the first case, the Fenerbahçe panel introduced the idea of a ‘two stage process’ in match-fixing disputes: the first stage encompasses an administrative measure, akin to a preliminary minimum sanction, while the second stage is a disciplinary measure, imposing an additional sanction. Thereafter, in a surprising twist the CAS declared the inherent disciplinary nature of the administrative measure of ineligibility, since the subject matter of Article 2.08 is ‘the imposition of a sanction’. According to this panel, the minimum sanction serves the legitimate interest of UEFA to exclude a club from European competitions with immediate effect, while additional sanctions can be imposed if the circumstances so justify. However, this interpretation creates a paradox in that it blurs the lines between acts of administrative and disciplinary nature, a distinction well entrenched in CAS case law.

The Besiktas case adds to the legal uncertainty with regard to the legal nature of the ineligibility measure. According to this panel and contrary to the assessment in the Fenerbahçe case, Article 2.08 UELR does not have a sanctioning character, even if it excludes a club from UEFA competition. This argument is based on the wording of Article 50 (3) UEFA Statutes which, by referring to the ineligibility measure as a measure imposed ‘without prejudice to any possible disciplinary measures’, implicitly excludes its sanctioning nature.

This contradictory interpretation of the ineligibility measure by the previous panels triggered the concerns of the Eskişehirspor panel, which aimed to put an end to the legal uncertainty surrounding the definition of the legal nature of Article 2.08. Therefore, the CAS proceeded for the first time with an extensive analysis of the legal nature of Article 2.08. First of all, the CAS recognized the existence of a double regulatory regime in match-fixing cases: an administrative measure aiming at preventing match-fixing, laid down in Articles 2.05 UCL or 2.07, 2.08 of UEL Regulations and Article 50.3 of the UEFA Statutes 2008, and a disciplinary measure enshrined in the Disciplinary Regulations, specifically at Art 5.2j of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations (DR) 2008. While this distinction seems to be inspired by the ‘two stage process’ elaborated in the Fenerbahçe case, this panel went a step further by drawing a clear line between measures of administrative and disciplinary character. After having clarified this distinction between measures of different legal nature and effect, the panel concluded that the measure of ineligibility of Article 2.08 is of a purely administrative nature. This assessment is based on an interpretation of Articles 2.09 UEL Regulations and Article 50.3 of the UEFA Statutes 2008 similar to the one adopted in the Besiktas case: both provisions refer to the automatic administrative application of the measure of ineligibility, leaving the door open for potential additional disciplinary measures ‘if the circumstances so justify’. Furthermore, the CAS noted that the administrative measure of Article 2.08 has a broad scope of application encompassing ‘any activity aimed at arranging or influencing the outcome of the match’, as compared to the disciplinary offence which in line with its sanctioning character is more restrictive.

Thereafter, the panel highlighted the consequences to be drawn from this qualification. As a result of the pure administrative nature of Article 2.08, the legal principles usually applicable to disciplinary measures are considered irrelevant. In practice, this means that the CAS excludes the application of: a) Articles 5.2 .j. and 17.1 of UEFA DR about the evaluation of mitigating circumstances when disciplinary measures are imposed; b) Article 6 of UEFA DR imposing a strict liability system; c) Article 11 of UEFA DR about the elimination of the ineligibility measure or the issuance of a probationary period; and finally, d) the ‘nulla poena sine culpa’ principle recognized in criminal law.

This straightforward position of the CAS in the Eskişehirspor case reflects its intention to put a provisory end to the legal uncertainty with regard to the legal nature of Article 2.08 and the legal consequences it entails. Borrowing elements from the previous Turkish cases, the CAS came up with a more sophisticated and coherent interpretation of the legal nature of the ineligibility measure, an interpretation that may serve as a reliable guideline for subsequent arbitral panels dealing with match-fixing. 

The scope of application of Article 2.08 UEL Regulations

Article 2.08 UEL Regulations does not define precisely the activities of a club that is directly or indirectly involvement in match-fixing. In match-fixing disputes, therefore, the CAS has a decisive role in clarifying the scope of application of the ineligibility measure.

As far as the scope ratione materiae is concerned, the Fenerbahçe and Besiktas panels converged in a broad understanding of the scope of Article 2.08. Indeed, based on the ordinary meaning of Article 2.08 which encompasses ‘any activity aimed at arranging or influencing the outcome of a match at a national or international level’ in conjunction with the ratio legis of this provision, which reflects the zero tolerance policy of UEFA against match-fixing, the CAS considered that Article 2.08 targets not only activities directly intending to fix the outcome of a game, but also activities that may have an unlawful influence on it. In this sense, for instance, the fact that Eskişehirspor accepted a bonus from a third party, i.e. Fenerbahçe, for winning, even though it cannot be qualified as match-fixing, is influencing the outcome of the match and, therefore, falls within the scope of Article 2.08. Furthermore, the Besiktas panel offered a broad interpretation of the wording ‘aimed at’ suggesting that not only the act of match-fixing, but also an attempt falls within the broad scope of Article 2.08. Hence, the Turkish cases establish an important finding with regard to the scope of application of the ineligibility measure in match-fixing disputes: a broad interpretation of Article 2.08 is in line with UEFA’s statutory objectives and, therefore, has to be adopted.

On the other hand, with regard to the scope ratione personae of Article 2.08, the CAS panels have been inconsistent. In order to identify whose actions are attributable to the club, the Besiktas panel applied the strict liability principle enshrined in Article 6 of the 2008 UEFA Disciplinary Regulations (DR). Here, the application of UEFA DR seems to be at odds with the previous characterization of Article 2.08 as an administrative measure. By contrast, in the Eskişehirspor case, where the issue whether the actions of a coach, who is a mere employee, can be attributed to the club is raised. In that case, the panel relying on the pure administrative character of Article 2.08, rejected the application of the strict liability principle. The Eskişehirspor panel, insisting on the qualification of the measure of ineligibility as an administrative measure, suggested an entirely different, but equally broad, interpretation of the ratione personae scope of article 2.08. Indeed, it suggests a broad interpretation of the term ‘official’, an interpretation that would capture ‘every board member ….coach, trainer and any other person responsible for technical, (…) as well as other persons obliged to comply with the UEFA Statutes’. In other words, the coach has to be considered as an official in the sense of Article 2.08 and his actions were, thus, attributable to the club.

To conclude, it seems that whatever the interpretative road chosen, the scope of application rationae personae and materiae of article 2.08 will be understood broadly. Nevertheless, it would be more coherent to have such a broad interpretation rely on a stabilized legal practice and the Eskişehirspor award provides an interesting first step in this direction.

The series of Turkish cases has provided the CAS with the opportunity to frame a consistent approach in substantive matters linked to match-fixing cases. In the Eskişehirspor case, the CAS attempts to clarify its approach to match-fixing in football. Two important conclusions can be drawn: the ineligibility measure imposed by Article 2.08 UELR has a broad scope of application and, secondly, it should be qualified as having an administrative nature. As a result, disciplinary rules do not apply to match-fixing disputes involving the eligibility of a club to European competitions. Regarding certain procedural matters, however, disciplinary standards and rules do apply. This is the real Achilles’ heel of the CAS approach in match-fixing cases: how can the application of rules of different nature to substantial and procedural matters in an identical match-fixing dispute be explained? 

(To be continued)

[1] Match-fixing in sport-A mapping of criminal law provisions in EU 27,  (http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/studies/study-sports-fraud-final-version_en.pdf), 14.

[2] CAS 2009/A/1920 FK Pobeda, Aleksandar Zabrcanec, Nikolce Zdraveski v/ UEFA, para 78.

[3] UEFA Disciplinary Regulations 2013, Article 12 ‘Integrity of matches and competitions and match-fixing’ (http://www.ecaeurope.com/Legal/UEFA%20Documents/2013_0241_Disciplinary%20Regulations%202013.pdf)

[4] CAS 2013/A/3256 Fenerbahçe Spor Kubülü v UEFA & CAS 2013/A/3258 Besiktas Jimnastik Kulübü v. UEFA

[5] CAS 2014/A/3628 Eskişehirspor Kulübü v UEFA, para 98.

[6] CAS 2007/A/1381 & CAS 2008/A/1583

In autumn 2011, the Finnish cross-country skier Juha Lalluka, known as a “lone-wolf” because of his training habit, showed an adverse analytical finding with regard to human growth hormone (hGH). The timing was ideal. As the FINADA Supervisory Body in view of the A and B positive samples initiated disciplinary proceedings against Lalluka for violation of anti-doping rules, the Veerpalu case was pending before the CAS. At the athlete’s request, the Supervisory Board postponed the proceedings until the CAS rendered the award in the Veerpalu case. Indeed, on 25 March 2013, the CAS shook the anti-doping order: it cleared Andrus Veerpalu of an anti-doping rule violation for recombinant hGH (rhGH) on the grounds that the decision limits set by WADA to define the ratio beyond which the laboratories should report the presence of rhGH had not proven scientifically reliable.

The Veerpalu precedent has become a rallying flag for athletes suspected of use of hGH and confirmed some concerns raised about the application of the hGH test. Not surprisingly, Sinkewitz and Lallukka followed the road that Veerpalu paved and sought to overturn their doping ban by alleging the scientific unreliability of the hGH decisions limits. Without success, however. With the full text of the CAS award on the Lallukka case released a few weeks ago[1] and the new rules of the 2015 WADA Code coming into force, we grasp the opportunity to outline the ambiguous approach of CAS on the validity of the hGH test. In short: Should the Veerpalu case and its claim that doping sanctions should rely on scientifically well founded assessments be considered as a fundamental precedent or as a mere exception?

Starting with the basics: the Human Growth Hormone (hGH) Test and the scientific controversies

The hGH is a hormone synthesized and secreted by cells in the anterior pituitary gland located at the base of the brain.[2] It is an endogenous substance, i.e. naturally produced in humans such as testosterone, and is necessary for skeletal growth, recovering cell and tissue damage. When released by the liver, hGH bonds to receptors in targeted cells to stimulate an increase in the levels of insulin growth factors, which stimulate growth and development of the cells.[3] It is noteworthy that the level of total hGH concentration varies in a human’s blood naturally and substantially over the course of the day.[4] High concentrations of hGH are considered abnormal and associated with anabolic substances.

Although there is no scientific consensus on whether higher levels of hGH actually enhance performance[5], anti-doping authorities have long been trying to detect and prevent the use of rhGH. The first blood test for hGH was introduced only at the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens. The major challenge in developing a doping test for hGH has been the uncertainty and variability in data used to establish the so called decision limits, namely a cut-point to assess whether an athlete’s blood higher hGH levels are natural or a result of doping. In 2010, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) published its guidelines for the hGH test, including the test’s decision limits.[6] The testing is done through the use of two distinct sets of reactive tubes coated with two combinations of antibodies, which are referred to as Kit1 and Kit2.[7] The ratio of concentration of rhGH versus other natural derived isoforms of hGH are measured with the Kits which are developed to detect the administration of exogenous hGH. Under the 2010 Guidelines, the decision limit values as regards to male athletes are 1.81 for Kit 1 and 1.68 for Kit 2. Any value above these limits triggers the report by the laboratory of a positive test.

Nevertheless, since its introduction, the WADA hGH test has raised multiple concerns in the scientific community with regard to the lack of reliable and valid scientific knowledge about factors other than doping that might affect the relationships upon which the test relies.[8] The varying levels of all types of hGH make it difficult to establish an accurate baseline measurement for natural hGH values and rations. For instance, hGH can be affected by factors such as gender, age, exercise, body consumption, time of day and stress. Also psychological or pathological factors may affect the ratio. In view of the lack of significant knowledge with regard to the factors that may result in suspicious hGH values, it is highly possible that athletes are mistakenly labelled as ‘cheaters’.

Although the decision limits of hGH tests are still being debated, in the last few years, the CAS has been called to strike the right balance between the need for fairness in sport and the risk of devastating an athlete’s life, career and reputation on the basis of unsound scientific assessments. Crucially, it will be demonstrated that the CAS panels adopted a rather erratic approach when interpreting the hGH decision limits, adding legal uncertainty to the current scientific uncertainty.

The Veerpalu ‘no doping sanction in absence of scientific validity’ threshold

On 14 February 2011, Andrus Veerpalu, the Estonian Olympic Gold Medalist in cross-country skiing, was tested positive for hGH. On 12 September 2011, he appealed the three-year doping ban for use of hGH imposed by the International Ski Federation (FIS) and he became the first to challenge the validity of hGH tests before the CAS. With its decision on 25 March 2013, the CAS stunned the anti-doping world: it overturned Veerpalu’s drug suspension on the grounds that the decision limits of the hGH test could not be reliably verified.

But, how did the CAS reach this striking ruling? First and foremost, the CAS did not question the hGH test itself, nor the scientific validity of the analytical method used to detect rhGH. The Court’s criticism rather focused on the lack of sufficient scientific validity in defining the decision limits set by WADA beyond which laboratories should report the presence of rhGH.[9] Namely, the Court questioned the use of statistics in interpreting the hGH test results and detected three procedural flaws: (1) inconsistencies in the studies conducted, (2) the lack of peer review on WADA hGH studies and (3) the insufficient evidence submitted during the proceedings.[10] In particular, as the studies on hGH are concerned, the panel concluded that the population study that had been conducted to establish the decision limits of the hGH test was inadequate.[11] In view of the procedural flaws detected in the statistical analysis conducted by WADA to establish the hGH baseline, the panel did not consider itself comfortably satisfied as to the reliability of the decision limits for the hGH test, and acquitted Veerpalu.[12]

To reverse a doping case and openly question WADA’s hGH test decision limits was an unprecedented move in light of the CAS’ usual hands-off approach when dealing with WADA policies. The Veerpalu award was not only a huge blow to WADA hGH tests, but it also triggered significant rethinking of the standards applicable in the anti-doping fight. As an immediate consequence of the award, all reporting of adverse analytical findings for rhGH were frozen pending the completion of new studies on the determination of hGH test decision limits based on a bigger population-based study. Secondly, a new rebuttable presumption of the scientific validity of the analytical methods and decision limits for rhGH was introduced in the revised WADC 2015 at Article 3.2.1. [13] The new rule shifts the burden of establishing flaws in the scientific validity of analytical tools on the athlete’s shoulders.[14] Interestingly enough, the presumption applies only to methods and decisions limits that are scientifically reliable, meaning they must have been approved by WADA after consultation with the relevant scientific community and subject to peer review.[15] At the same time, the provision intends to set new procedural requirements in the judicial review of the analytical methods or decision limits used by WADA. Such a review is subject (1) to a mandatory notice to WADA of the challenge and (2) to the right for WADA to intervene in the CAS proceedings and request from the CAS to appoint an appropriate scientific expert to assist the panel in the evaluation of the challenge.[16]

More importantly, the Veerpalu award sets an important threshold in doping cases – as well as in every case where the CAS has to deal with scientific evidence: the need for scientific validity and systematic transparency before the imposition of any sanction. This development in conjunction with the new rule of evidence of Article 3.2.1 WADC 2015 can be considered as paving the way for a fairer and more realistic chance for Athletes to successfully rebut a doping sanction.[17]

Sinkewitz hGH case: A surprising twist to the Veerpalu saga

The Veerpalu case soon inspired athletes facing anti-doping sanctions. The German cyclist Patrik Sinkewitz and Lallukka, two athletes detected positive for rhGH, attempted to overturn their doping ban based on the Veerpalu precedent. However, the CAS begged to differ.

In the Sinkewitz case, the panel justified its deviation from the Veerpalu award by introducing the ‘borderline’ criterion. Unlike Veerpalu, Sinkewitz’s samples were far higher than the WADA decision limits and, as a result, he could not benefit from the uncertainty of a borderline situation.[18] In view of this, Sinkewitz was found ineligible for 8 years, since it was his second anti-doping rules violation. More importantly, the panel relied on a different evaluation of the hGH test, contradicting thereby the Veerpalu reasoning. According to the Sinkewitz panel, the decision limits defined in WADA Guidelines represent mere means of evidence and can serve as a recommendation to the laboratories, without being, however, mandatory and decisive for determining whether an anti-doping rule violation occurred.[19] This practically means that even in the instance of a ratio below the decision limits or in a borderline situation like the Veerpalu one, the panel could be ‘comfortably satisfied’ by expert evidence identifying rhGH irrespectively of the validity of the decision limits.[20] Contrary to the Veerpalu panel which seemed to rely on a perception of the hGH test as a quantitative analysis applicable to Threshold Substances covered by the Technical Document on Decision limits, the Sinkewitz panel - by characterizing the decision limits as a mere technical criterion for the identification of rhGH - seemed to perceive the hGH test analysis as a qualitative one, implying that more criteria are taken into account.[21]

Lallukka hGH case: Reconciling a conflicting jurisprudence ?

The Sinkewitz panel’s pattern with regard to the hGH tests decision limits was later followed by the Lallukka panel. The latter validated the Sinkewitz conclusion that the decision limits have no legal status and it further used this argument in order to rebut Lallukka’s objection about the retroactive application of legal rules. Since decision limits are not rules as such, but rather means of evidence figured as ‘guidelines’, the rule against retroactivity cannot apply to evidentiary matters.[22] However, it can me remarked that as in the Sinkewitz case the CAS chose to abstain from any criticism with regard to WADA’s practice to incorporate the decision limits into guidelines, instead of enshrining them directly in a mandatory document.[23]

Furthermore, the deviation from the Veerpalu precedent was based on the evidence provided in two independent studies mandated by WADA, i.e. the Mc Gill Study and a study from Prof Jean-Christophe Thalabard, which were merged into a peer- reviewed joint publication paper. According to the panel, the studies responded adequately to the concerns expressed in the Veerpalu case and established the decision limits with a 99.99% specificity. As a result, the panel was comfortably satisfied as regards the reliability of the hGH tests decision limits and Lalluka could not benefit from the Veerpalu precedent.[24]

Nevertheless, although at a first glance being in line with the Sinkewitz award, the Lallukka award added an interesting twist regarding the starting point of the athlete’s suspension. In fact, the panel by reference to the principle of fairness concluded that the athlete’s disqualification would start only from June 2014 onwards, when WADA was in a position to answer in a documented manner, i.e. through the peer-reviewed joint publication paper, the issues raised in the Veerpalu case.[25] Thus, the panel seems to apply the ‘golden rule’ established in the Veerpalu case that a doping sanction could be imposed only on the basis of reliable scientific knowledge. Thereby, creating a sort of legal bridge between the competing lines of CAS jurisprudence and paving the road to a fair reconciliation preserving the rights of the athletes.

Conclusion: Should Veerpalu Stand?

The Veerpalu ruling was a landmark case for the CAS in doping matters and particularly concerning the hGH test. It set a clear standard for future CAS panels: when exercising their daunting task of reviewing decisions based on complex scientific assessments, they need to ensure that these assessments rely on transparent and rigorous scientific practice of the highest quality. The Sinkewitz and Lallukka cases, however, unveiled an unfortunate (partial) retreat from this position. This is not without consequence regarding the credibility of the CAS and the anti-doping fight. The fight for clean sport must be based on the safest scientific standards possible and, to this end, these standards should stay subjected to full CAS scrutiny. With the new WADC 2015 and the rebuttable presumption of scientific validity for analytical methods and decision limits it enshrines, more intriguing legal challenges against the hGH tests are likely to be brought before the CAS. One may wonder whether this new regime will be advantageous for athletes or whether it is an ‘illusion of fairness’, since it seems highly unlikely that athletes without WADA’s extensive network of laboratories and resources can prove the unreliability of the hGH ratios.[26] Whatever the future brings, one thing remains certain in the anti-doping landscape: the CAS’ absolute reluctance to openly question WADA rules belongs to the past.

[1] CAS 2014/A/3488, World Anti-Doping Agency v. Mr Juha Lallukka (20 November 2014)

[2] CAS. 2011/A/2566, Veerpalu v. FIS, 25 March 2013, para 83

[3] J Coleman and J Levien, ‘ The burden of proof in endogenous substance cases’ in M McNamee and V Moller (eds) Doping and Anti-Doping Policy in Sport- Ethical, legal and social perspectives (Routledge 2011) 27-49, 37.

[4] K Fischer and  D Berry, ‘Statisticians introduce science to International Doping Agency: The Andrus Veerpalu case’ , 5

[5] For a critical approach on hGH effect on an athlete’s performance, see A Hoffman and others ‘Systematic review: the effects of growth hormone on athletic performance’ (2008) Annals of Internal Medicine, 747-758

[6] To be noted that there is no material change to this approach in the 2014 Guidelines.

[7] CAS 2014/A/3488, World Anti-Doping Agency v. Mr Juha Lallukka, para 9

[8] J Coleman and J Levien (n 3), 39.

[9] M Viret and E Wisnosky, ‘Sinkewitz v. Veerpalu: Struggling to fit anti-doping science into a legal framework’

(19 March 2014) < http://wadc-commentary.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WADC_COMMENTARY_Sinkewitz-Blog.pdf>

[10]  CAS. 2011/A/2566, Veerpalu v. FIS (n 2), paras 204-206.

[11] Ibid, para 206.

[12] Ibid

[13] WADC 2015, Article 3.2.1: “Analytical methods or decision limits approved by WADA after consultation within the relevant scientific community and which have been the subject of peer review are presumed to be scientifically valid. Any Athlete or other Person seeking to rebut this presumption of scientific validity shall, as a condition precedent to any such challenge, first notify WADA of the challenge and the basis of the challenge. CAS, on its own initiative, may also inform WADA of any such challenge. At WADA’s request, the CAS panel shall appoint an appropriate scientific expert to assist the panel in its evaluation of the challenge. Within 10 days of WADA ’s receipt of such notice, and WADA ’s receipt of the CAS file, WADA shall also have the right to intervene as a party, appear amicus curiae or otherwise provide evidence in such proceeding.”

[14] M Viret, ‘How to make science and law work hand in hand in anti-doping’ (2014) Causa Sport : die Sport-Zeitschrift für nationales und internationales Recht sowie für Wirtschaft, Issue 2, 106

[15] WADC 2015, Article 3.2.1 (n 13)

[16] Ibid

[17] A Rigozzi, M Viret and E Wisnosky  ‘Does the World Anti-Doping Code Revision Live up to its Promises? – A preliminary survey in the main changes in the final draft of the 2015 WADA Code, Jusletter of 11  November 2013

[18] CAS 2012/A/2857 Nationale Anti-Doping Agentur Deutschland v. Patrick Sinkewitz (24 February 2014), para 204.

[19] Ibid, para 192

[20] WADC, Article 3.2: “Facts related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions.”

[21] M Viret and E Wisnosky (n 9)

[22]CAS 2014/A/3488, World Anti-Doping Agency v. Mr Juha Lallukka, paras 112-116

[23] M Viret and E Wisnosky (n 9)

[24]CAS 2014/A/3488, World Anti-Doping Agency v. Mr Juha Lallukka, paras 98-99

[25] Ibid, para 137

[26] J Coleman and J Levien (n 3), 39.