Editor’s note: Thomas Terraz is a fourth year LL.B. candidate at the International and European Law programme at The Hague University of Applied Sciences with a specialisation in European Law. Currently he is pursuing an internship at the T.M.C. Asser Institute with a focus on International and European Sports Law.

1.     Introduction

The UCI may soon have to navigate treacherous legal waters after being the subject of two competition law based complaints (see here and here) to the European Commission in less than a month over rule changes and decisions made over the past year. One of these complaints stems from Velon, a private limited company owned by 11 out of the 18 World Tour Teams,[1] and the other comes from the Lega del Ciclismo Professionistico, an entity based in Italy representing an amalgamation of stakeholders in Italian professional cycling. While each of the complaints differ on the actual substance, the essence is the same: both are challenging the way the UCI exercises its regulatory power over cycling because of a growing sense that the UCI is impeding the development of cycling as a sport. Albeit in different ways: Velon sees the UCI infringing on its ability to introduce new race structures and technologies; the Lega del Ciclismo Professionistico believes the UCI is cutting opportunities for semi-professional cycling teams, the middle ground between the World Tour Teams and the amateur teams.

While some of the details remain vague, this blog will aim to unpack part of the claims made by Velon in light of previous case law from both the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to give a preliminary overview of the main legal issues at stake and some of the potential outcomes of the complaint. First, it will be crucial to understand just who/what Velon is before analyzing the substance of Velon’s complaint.

2.     Who / What is Velon?

From an outsider’s point of view, the answer to this question is not so obvious as it may seem. Velon itself is owned by 11 World Tour Teams, which is the pinnacle of the UCI’s men’s team classification. In other words, Velon represents more than half of the largest team stakeholders in road cycling.[2] However, Velon does not just simply advocate for these teams’ interests, but it engages in its own economic activities, which can be categorized into two types. First, it has been the organizer of a new series of races called the Hammer Series (or as the UCI would prefer, simply Hammer) where instead of having individual cyclists (competing on behalf of a team) placing individually in a stage of a race, the entire team is classified through a points-based system. The point of this format is ‘crowning the best team in professional cycling’.

Velon also created a ‘digital content and live data platform’ through VelonLive via a partnership with EY, which was first made public in May of this year. VelonLive essentially collects data from road cycling races in order to give spectators more insight into the race. For example, it collects ‘real-time biometric rider data’, including heart rate, power and cadence data from specific riders in a race to on bike cameras and cameras in team cars. The aim is to try to bring the race closer to the spectator by offering more data and new ways to see and understand the race. Major race organizers, like the Giro D’Italia and the Tour of Flanders have jumped on these new race visualization technologies and used VelonLive this year in their respective races.

So not only does Velon act as a representative of a large group of first-rate road cycling teams, but it also organizes races and is working to develop innovative ways for cycling fans to experience road cycling races.

3.     The Complaint

Velon, through a press release on their website, announced that it had launched a formal complaint against the UCI to the European Commission on 20 September, 2019 to which it added an ‘Addendum to the Complaint’ on 8 November, 2019. While these press releases and accompanied ‘context notes’ are rather bare in explaining the factual background to the complaint, it is still enough to extract the essence of what is being alleged. At its core, Velon is making a three-pronged complaint against the UCI: first, that the UCI acted in a way that has ‘hampered the development of the Series’ (Hammer Series); secondly, that the UCI is discriminating against women’s cycling by denying the approval of a women’s race that would accompany the already existing men’s race in Hammer Stavanger; lastly, that the amendments to the UCI’s Technical Regulations effectively take away Velon and other race organizers’ control over live race data technologies and were adopted without sufficiently consulting stakeholders.  Concerning the last complaint, Velon seems to be referring to certain amendments from 15 February, 2019 made to the equipment regulations Article 1.3.024ter. The changes essentially introduced a pre-authorization scheme for ‘onboard technology equipment’ in which the UCI or an event organizer with the UCI’s consent must give prior authorization for ‘any intended use by a team or rider’ of such equipment. However, given both the scarce details and length restraints, this blog concentrates on the on the first two elements of the complaint, which are further dissected here.

Velon alleges that the UCI acted to prevent the organization of Hammer races into a series and threatened to not register the men’s Hammer races in the 2020 calendar if Velon proceeded to do so. As of 11 November, 2019, the three men’s Hammer races are still listed in the 2020 calendar, while the women’s Hammer Stavanger race is not listed, since it was rejected by the UCI. Velon also claims that the UCI did not give any reasons for its opposition to the series and that it ‘hampered’ the overall development of the series. Further details are rather murky; however, it is essential to point out that the UCI, like many other SGBs, employs a pre-authorization scheme[3] for cycling events, and it prohibits both teams and individual cyclists (of all levels) in participating in non-authorized third-party events under the threat of sanctions. Individuals may face a one-month suspension and a fine of 50 to 100 CHF.[4] Such an event pre-authorization scheme has been the focal point of two major EU sports competition law cases: the CJEU’s decision in MOTOE and the Commission’s decision concerning the ISU’s eligibility rules. It is likely that if the Commission takes on this case, it will closely scrutinize the UCI’s pre-authorization scheme and its actual application, including the accompanied sanctions. From the outset, it is critical to bear in mind that the CJEU has held that rules of sport governing bodies may escape the prohibitions under Article 101 TFEU  if ‘the consequential effects restrictive of competition are inherent in the pursuit of those objectives (Wouters and Others, paragraph 97) and are proportionate to them’.[5] On the other hand, a dominant undertaking may justify its actions under Article 102 TFEU if it can demonstrate ‘that its conduct is objectively necessary or by demonstrating that its conduct produces substantial efficiencies which outweigh any anti-competitive effects on consumers’.[6]

As a preliminary note, it should be stated that if the Commission decides to pursue the case under Article 102 TFEU, it will not be hard pressed to find the UCI and its respective national federations collectively dominant[7] in the relevant market.^[8] The relevant market regarding the Hammer races will most likely be confined to the organization and commercial exploitation of international road cycling races on the worldwide market.^[9] Even though the Professional Cycling Council (PCC) adopts the UCI WorldTour calendar, Velon could still contend that the UCI exerts control over its adoption given the composition of the PCC.^[10]

4.     Analysis of the ‘hampered’ Series and alleged discrimination against women’s cycling

4.1.MOTOE

In MOTOE, ELPA, a Greek motorsport organization, was given the regulatory power through a national law to approve or deny motorsport events in Greece, while also organizing and commercially exploiting such events itself.[11] MOTOE challenged the national law giving ELPA this power after one of its events was not approved. The CJEU ruled that the dual role of ELPA as both a regulator and commercial exploiter was contrary to competition law because it had not given an ‘equality of opportunity’ ‘between the various economic operators’.[12] AG Kokott’s Opinion goes further and describes a ‘conflict of interest’ in which sport governing bodies are placed if they are both the gatekeeper and promoter of sport events.[13] A similar situation in the Commission’s FIA case even resulted in the complete separation of FIA’s ‘commercial and regulatory functions’ in order to cease its breach of EU competition law.[14]

Unlike ELPA, the UCI is not given the power to regulate the events included in its calendar by an act of a state or public body. Nonetheless, it still wields an immense power over the regulation and approval of events in road cycling deriving from its position as the world’s cycling governing body. The UCI also benefits considerably from the registration of events in its calendar, a fact that is quickly verified by having a glance at its yearly financial report,[15] which demonstrates the extent to which it is dependent on revenues connected to its sanctioned events. The UCI can only justify charging fees for events if there is the existence of an official closed calendar of events. Additionally, the UCI itself is an event organizer since it arranges the annual UCI Road World Championships. Therefore, it is very likely that the UCI may be faced with a ‘conflict of interest’ because it holds the keys to its events calendar while having an apparent financial stake in the approval of events.

 At this point, it is also helpful to examine the Commission’s decision in the ISU case which delves in depth on the compatibility of event pre-authorization schemes with EU law.

4.2.The Commission’s ISU Decision

The ISU case concerned two Dutch speed skaters who challenged the ISU eligibility rules precluding them from participating in non-ISU authorized events, subject to a potential lifetime ban (the ban was amended during the proceedings to allow greater flexibility on the sanction but was still found to be contrary to EU law). The concerned skaters wished to participate in IceDerby’s events. IceDerby is an ice-skating events organizer who aimed to create a new race format that would introduce ‘a new type of skating events on a different size track than the ISU recognized track’.[16] This very much echoes some of the fact pattern of the present case in which Hammer seeks to introduce a new road cycling race format. The Commission found that the severity of the sanctions in case of a breach of the ISU’s eligibility rules inherently aimed ‘at preventing athletes from participating in events not authorised by the ISU, resulting in the foreclosure of competing event organizers’.[17] In the end, the case largely turned on whether the ISU’s eligibility rules pursued legitimate objectives and whether they were inherent and proportionate to its aims. The Commission identified that ‘the integrity of the sport, the protection of the athletes’ health and safety and the organisation and proper conduct of sport’ could be considered legitimate objectives but that the ISU’s eligibility rules did not actually pursue any of these objectives.[18] Moreover, the Commission found that the financial and economic interests of the ISU could not be considered legitimate objectives.[19]

In Velon’s complaint, as in the ISU case, there are two connected, yet separate elements that the Commission will most likely have to analyze: (a) the prohibition of participating in non-approved events and the relevant sanctioning framework and (b) the UCI’s events approval process (the pre-authorization scheme). Concerning the former, Pat McQuaid, the former UCI president explained the aim of the rules banning participation in non-approved events in a letter to USA Cycling back in 2013. He explained that it ‘allows for a federative structure’, ‘which is inherent in organised sport and which is essential to being a part of the Olympic movement’. The Commission dismissed this notion in the ISU case when it pointed out that there are several sport federations that do not have an ‘ex-ante control system’ that effectively precludes athletes from participating in third party events.[20] Nevertheless, this stated objective may still fall under the organization and proper function of sport, which was deemed a legitimate objective by the Commission.

However, the issue remains as to whether the UCI’s pre-authorization scheme, the latter element identified above, pursues legitimate objectives while meeting the proportionality requirements.  In other words, why does the UCI oppose the organization of Hammer races in a series and approving a corresponding women’s event? From Velon’s claims, it is questionable whether the UCI has a ‘pre-established objective, nondiscriminatory and proportionate criteria’ in approving events since it claims that it never received an explanation as to why its series was rejected.[21] In addition, the UCI must elaborate its reasoning in denying a women’s Hammer Stavanger event beyond that it ‘was not in the best interest of women’s cycling’. The UCI will have to explain why it not only allegedly threatened to remove Hammer races from the calendar and denied the inclusion of a women’s race but also why it did not provide Velon a full response that gave objective justifications, not tied to any economic or financial interests, as to why it is opposed the organization of a Hammer Series and a women’s Hammer Stavanger race.

In the end, in order for the ISU to keep its event pre-authorization scheme it was required to: (a) ‘provide for sanctions and authorization criteria that are inherent in the pursuit of legitimate objectives’, (b) ‘provide for objective, transparent and non-discriminatory sanctions and authorization criteria’ that are proportionate to its objectives, and (c) ‘provide for an objective, transparent and non-discriminatory procedure for the adoption and effective review of decisions’ concerning the ‘authorisation of speed skating events’.[22] The Commission will likely evaluate the UCI’s pre-authorization scheme in light of these criteria.

4.2.1.    The UCI’s pre-authorisation scheme in light of the ISU criteria

This examination will begin by investigating the second and third criteria before returning to the first criteria. On the second criteria, the UCI lays out the sanctions for participating in ‘forbidden races’ in Part 1 of its Regulations under Article 1.2.021 that plainly states that breaches ‘shall render the licence holder liable to one month’s suspension and a fine of CHF 50 to 100’. Since the sanction is not nearly as draconian as the ISU’s sanctions, the UCI may have a greater chance of arguing that it is proportionate to its objective, although it could still be argued that the sanction does not give much flexibility depending on the circumstances of the case.[23] Concerning the event authorization criteria, the UCI explains the requirements to register a race in the international calendar in the ‘Registration Procedure for UCI Calendars 2020/2020-2021’, which sets out the financial obligations of event organizers, the relevant deadlines, and the documentation[24] that event organizers will have to provide. In addition, the UCI does not have the same intrusive financial disclosure requirements, which was strongly rebuked by the Commission.[25] However, nowhere does it explicitly mention ‘an interest of cycling’ criteria, which makes it a real wonder as to why this was the reason given, according to Velon, concerning the rejection of the women’s Hammer Stavanger race. Consequently, the Commission will have to examine whether the criteria are in practice applied in a uniform and non-discriminatory manner and whether the UCI uses other criteria to assess the inclusion of an event on the international calendar. The Commission did not condone the ISU’s non-exhaustive list of criteria and the broad margin of discretion it had in approving or rejecting event applications.[26]

On the third criteria, the UCI does have a rather transparent process (see flow chart below[27]) concerning the adoption of its calendar, and it also has a process for the review of a rejection of an event application.[28] If the UCI management committee rejects an application, the event organizers may have the opportunity to defend the application. If it does not have this opportunity, the organizer may appeal to the UCI’s arbitral board, however, the decision is final and cannot be appealed further. It is at this point that the UCI’s event pre-authorization scheme may run into further difficulties meeting the ISU criteria because it does not even allow the possibility for the organizer to appeal to the CAS. Even the ISU in its Communication No. 1974 allowed for an appeal to the CAS, which still did not preclude the Commission from questioning the extent an appeals arbitration would ensure the effectiveness of EU competition law, to which it concluded that an appeal to the CAS reinforced the restriction of competition.[29] Against this background, the Commission would likely find the UCI’s grip over the review process restrictive of competition.

Returning to the first of the ISU criteria, the question is whether the UCI’s sanctions and pre-authorization criteria are inherent in the pursuit of a legitimate objective. Considering the above, it is doubtful whether the potentially open list of criteria and the limited effective review of decisions could be considered inherent in the pursuit of a legitimate objective such as ‘the organisation and proper conduct of sport’. Furthermore, Velon’s case may turn on how well it can demonstrate that it has been unjustly put under pressure from the UCI.

4.3. Final thoughts on the ‘hampered’ series

It appears that the UCI has allegedly wielded its regulatory power through its event pre-authorization scheme to force Velon to remove a critical aspect of its races: the series. The UCI’s alleged move is further puzzling by the fact that none of the Hammer races interfere with the men’s or women’s World Tour race calendar (with the exception of Il Lombardia and Hammer Hong Kong), meaning that teams and riders would anyway be available. Even if there was an interference, it is important to keep in mind that professional cycling teams are usually sufficiently large and organized to compete in more than one race in the world simultaneously.

Finally, while the UCI did not actually remove the men’s Hammer races from the calendar, just an imminent threat of doing so may be sufficient to restrict competition. Cyclists are severely discouraged to participate in non-authorized events considering the sanctions they may face. Hence, event organizers, such as Velon, are completely reliant on the UCI to approve their events in order to have any chance at a successful and economically viable event,[30] and consequently, Velon cannot risk losing the UCI’s

approval for the Hammer races. Furthermore, the UCI has in practice already denied a women’s race at Hammer Stavanger, which greatly strengthens Velon’s claims against the UCI. Lastly, given the vagueness of the claim that the UCI overall hampered the development of the Hammer Series, it is possible that there are additional details that have not been publicized that could further support a potential violation of EU competition law by the UCI.

5.     Conclusion

Velon has also requested interim measures that would force the UCI’s approval of a women’s race during Hammer Stavanger 2020. However, since interim measures are rarely granted,[31] it is unlikely  Velon will succeed on this front. Nevertheless, based on the discussion above, there are quite a few signs that the UCI has perhaps overstepped its regulatory powers. The UCI’s alleged actions, especially its opposition to the organization of a women’s Hammer Stavanger race, beg the question as to how it will defend its decision as pursuing legitimate objectives and respecting the proportionality requirements. Moreover, it should be recalled that Velon’s complaints also concern the UCI’s equipment regulations and that there is a completely separate complaint from the Lega del Ciclismo Professionistico. Thus, due to the large territorial scope and the potentially wide range of actors affected by the UCI’s actions in these cases, it would be a missed opportunity if the Commission declines to further elucidate how sport governing bodies must exercise their regulatory powers in order to comply with EU competition law, especially when their own financial interests may be in play.

[1] Teams include: Bora-Hansgrohe, CCC Team, Deceuninck–QuickStep, EF Education First, Lotto Soudal, Mitchelton-Scott, Team Ineos, Team Jumbo-Visma, Team Sunweb, Trek-Segafredo and UAE Team Emirates.

[2] Both Team Sunweb and Trek-Segafredo also operate professional women’s cycling teams.

[3] See Registration Procedure for UCI Calendars: 2020/ 2020-2021, 11 on how the UCI approves events.

[4] See UCI Regulations, Part I: General organization of cycling as a sport, arts 1.2.019, 1.2.020, and 1.2.021 and Part 2 Road Races, art 5.006.

[5] Case C-519/04 David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v Commission of the European Communities [2006] ECR I-06991, para 42; See also Commission, ‘White Paper on Sport’ COM/2007/0391 final.

[6] Guidance on the Commission’s enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings [2009] OJ C45/02, para 28.

[7] See the role of the national federations in handling the event registrations in the flow chart under section 4.2.1.

[8] See Commission, ‘Commission Staff Working Document - The EU and Sport: Background and Context - Accompanying document to the White Paper on Sport’ COM(2007) 391 final, section 2.1.4: ‘sports associations usually have practical monopolies in a given sport and may thus normally be considered dominant in the market of the organization of sport events under Article 82 EC’.

[9] Articles 1.2.002 and 1.2.004 of the UCI Regulations govern the cycling calendars, and it separates road cycling events into different calendars: the international calendar, which includes the UCI WorldTour and continental calendars, and the national calendars to which national federations are responsible. The UCI management committee holds the final say concerning the approval of continental calendars, see flow chart in Registration Procedure for UCI Calendars 2020/ 2020-2021, 11.

[10] The PCC is composed of 12 members (six appointed by UCI management, two representing athletes, two representing the WorldTour Teams and two representing the UCI WorldTour Organizers) and a president nominated by the UCI management (after consultation with the other members). However, given the PCC’s aforementioned composition and the fact that decisions are taken by a simple majority vote, in theory, the UCI only needs to rally its members and the UCI appointed president to ensure a motion is passed. Furthermore, ‘the UCI Executive Committee may suspend the application of regulations adopted by the PCC if it considers that interests of the UCI WorldTour are threatened’, see point 15 of the hyperlinked document.

[11] Case C-49/07 Motosykletistiki Omospondia Ellados NPID (MOTOE) v Elliniko Dimosio [2008] ECLI:EU:C:2008:376.

[12] ibid para 51.

[13] Case C-49/07 Motosykletistiki Omospondia Ellados NPID (MOTOE) v Elliniko Dimosio [2008] ECLI:EU:C:2008:376, Opinion of AG Kokott, para 98.

[14] Commission, ‘Notice published pursuant to Article 19(3) of Council Regulation No 17 concerning Cases COMP/35.163 — Notification of FIA Regulations, COMP/36.638 — Notification by FIA/FOA of agreements relating to the FIA Formula One World Championship, COMP/36.776 — GTR/FIA ' others’ (2001/C 169/03) OJ C 169.

[15] See UCI, Financial/Annual Report 2018, 110.

[16] International Skating Union’s Eligibility rules (CASE AT. 40208) [2017] C(2017) 8240, para 64.

[17] ibid para 168.

[18] ibid para 219.

[19] ibid para 220.

[20] ibid para 252.

[21] ibid para 244.

[22] ibid paras 340-342.

[23] The sanctions under the ISU’s 2014 Eligibility Rules also did not examine the specific circumstances of the infringement. See how the Commission examined this issue in ibid paras 260-262.

[24] UCI Regulations, Part I: General organization of cycling as a sport, art 1.2.009 provides that the organizer must submit the following documentation for the first time a race is organized: ‘- type of race (discipline, speciality, format); - description of the course including total length (in km) and, where applicable, that of stages and circuits; - the type and number of participating teams and/or riders' categories wanted; - financial aspects (prizes, travel and subsistence expenses); - references concerning organization’.

[25] International Skating Union’s Eligibility rules, paras 255-256.

[26] ibid para 257.

[27] Taken from the Registration Procedure for UCI Calendars 2020/ 2020-2021, 11.

[28] UCI Regulations, Part I: General organization of cycling as a sport, art 1.2.013.

[29] See International Skating Union’s Eligibility rules, paras 268-286.

[30] See how this issue is mirrored in ibid paras 68 and 133.

[31] Interim measures were only recently granted after not having been issued for nearly 20 years.

Editor's note: James Kitching is Legal Counsel and Secretary to the AFC judicial bodies at the Asian Football Confederation. James is an Australian and Italian citizen and one of the few Australians working in international sports law. He is admitted as barrister and solicitor in the Supreme Court of South Australia. James graduated from the International Master in the Management, Law, and Humanities of Sport offered by the Centre International d'Etude du Sport in July 2012.

Introduction

On 12 May 2015, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) announced that the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) had filed an appeal against the decision issued by the Australian Football League (AFL) Anti-Doping Tribunal (AADT) that thirty-four current and former players of Essendon Football Club (Essendon) had not committed any anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) identified within the AFL Anti-Doping Code (AADC). The players had each been charged with using Thymosin-Beta 4 (TB4) during the 2012 AFL season.

On 1 June 2015, WADA announced that it had filed an appeal against the decision by the AADT to clear Mr. Stephen Dank (Dank), a sports scientist employed at Essendon during the relevant period, of twenty-one charges of violating the AADC. Dank was, however, found guilty of ten charges and banned for life.

This blog will solely discuss the likelihood of the first AADT decision (the Decision) being overturned by the CAS. It will briefly summarise the facts, discuss the applicable rules and decision of the AADT, review similar cases involving ‘non-analytical positive’ ADRVs relating to the use of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method, and examine whether the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (CAS Code) is able to assist WADA in its appeal.

This blog will not examine the soap opera that was the two years leading-up to the Decision. Readers seeking a comprehensive factual background should view the excellent up-to-date timeline published by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 

Factual Background

“Blackest day in Australian sport”

The Decision ultimately derived from what one media commentator dubbed the “blackest day in Australian sport” .

On 7 February 2013, the chief executives of the five biggest Australian sports appeared beside the Federal Sports Minister, Federal Justice Minister, and CEOs of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency (ASADA), and Australian Crime Commission (ACC) at a press conference which detailed the findings of a twelve month inquiry into Australian professional sport. The resulting report, “Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport”, set out that the ACC had identified or suspected widespread use of peptides and hormones in Australian professional sport.

Two days prior, Essendon had requested that ASADA and the AFL investigate whether prohibited substances had been administered to its players during the 2012 season.

AFL disciplinary action

On 2 August 2013, the AFL received an interim report from ASADA and eleven days later charged Essendon and four officers with engaging “in conduct unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the Australian Football League or to bring the game of football into disrepute”. Essendon and three of the officials were ultimately sanctioned.

The grounds for the charges make for sobering reading. The highlights appear below (emphasis added):

51. With the assistance of Shane Charter (Charter), a convicted drug dealer, Dank ordered various peptides, or the raw materials for such peptides. The compounding of these substances was undertaken by Nima Alavi (Alavi) at the Como Compounding Pharmacy (Como). At least some of these substances were intended by Dank for administration to players at the Club and were in fact administered to players at the Club.

…

67. On 8 February 2012, at a meeting of players of the Club, Dank introduced four substances that were purportedly approved for use in accordance with the Protocol…

68. Following that meeting, 38 players at the Club signed “Patient Information/Informed Consent” forms in relation to these four substances…

69. If the dosages the subject of the “Patient Information/Informed Consent” forms were administered, the playing group would receive in the order of:

(a) more than 1,500 injections of AOD-9064 and Thymosin; and

(b) more than 16,500 doses of Colostrum; and

(c) more than 8,000 doses of Tribulus.

…

124. During the relevant period, the Club caused the following substances to be administered to players at the Club:

(a) Actovegin;

(b) unspecified amino acids

(c) unspecified multi-vitamins;

(d) AOD-9604 creams;

(e) AOD-9604 injections;

(f) Cerebrolysin;

(g) Colostrum;

 (h) REDACTED;

(i) Lactaway;

(j) Lube-all-plus;

(k) Melatonin;

(l) Melanotan II;

(m) TA-65;

(n) Thymosin Beta 4;

(o) Traumeel; and

(p) Tribulus.

125. The use of these substances by the players was not approved by the Club’s medical staff, with the exception of AOD-9604, which was the subject of some sort of informal approval by Reid in February 2012.

126. In many instances the use of these substances failed to have proper regard to player health and safety.

127. Proper records were not maintained by the Club as to precisely which players received which of the substances referred to in paragraph 124 above, in which quantities and when, during the relevant period.

AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal

Applicable Rules

On 14 November 2014, the AFL issued identical infraction notices to the 34 players alleging use of the prohibited substance TB4 during the 2012 season in violation of Article 11.2 of the AADC. The players were provisionally suspended on the same day. The infraction notices were issued after the players were placed on the ADRV Register of Findings on 12 November 2014 by an independent Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel pursuant to the National Anti-Doping Scheme prescribed in the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act 2006.

As the alleged misconduct occurred during the 2012 AFL season, the applicable version of the AADC was the 2010 edition. This version was effectively a mirror of the WADA Code 2009.

As such, the standards applied universally by sports disciplinary and anti-doping panels applied. Accordingly, AFL and/or ASADA bore the burden of proving each ADRV to the comfortable satisfaction of the AADT, bearing in mind the seriousness of each allegation made. Such standard of proof was greater than a mere balance of probability, but less than beyond a reasonable doubt.[1] The AFL and/or ASADA were able to establish the allegations by “any reliable means”.[2]

Decision

The hearing was conducted on various dates between December 2014 and February 2015. The Decision was announced on 31 March 2015. However, its written reasons have never been made public. As such, determining the evidence that was available has been gleaned from numerous media reports (including this comprehensive piece by Gerard Whateley), public announcements, and leaked documents. The author has also had the benefit of discussing the matter with a number of parties close to the proceedings.

It was agreed by the parties that the case against each player had two limbs:

(i)           during the 2012 AFL season, the player used (through injections) TB4; and

(ii)          TB4 was a prohibited substance on the relevant WADA Prohibited List.

As a threshold issue, the AADT was comfortably satisfied that TB4 was a prohibited substance within the category of substances set out in s2 of the 2012 WADA Prohibited List:

“any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the list and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use”.

Thus, the case turned on the ability of ASADA to discharge its burden of proof relating to the first limb. This limb was broken down into three elements, agreed by the parties, which formed the basis of the ASADA case:

(a)          TB4 was procured from sources in China;

(b)          TB4 was obtained by Alavi, compounded and provided to Dank in his   capacity as Sports Scientist at Essendon; and

(c)           Dank administered TB4 to each player.

This was essentially the same conduct, described above, for which Essendon and its four officials were sanctioned.

Charter, Alavi and Dank all refused to appear at the hearing, and ASADA failed in a last-ditch application to the Victorian Supreme Court to compel Charter and Alavi to appear pursuant to the Commercial Arbitration Act 2011.[3] As such, ASADA’s case was wholly circumstantial, and relied, in a large part, on testimony and documents provided to it by Charter and Alavi during its investigation, and statements made by Dank in the media.

The AADT thus had an unenviable task in determining the probative value of the evidence provided by key witnesses without having the benefit of observing them under examination and cross-examination. As such, the AADT held (emphasis added):

“Having considered all the evidence relating to the credibility and reliability of Mr Alavi, Mr Charter and Mr Dank … the Tribunal finds that the credibility of each of these principal participants is at a low ebb and each man in acting as he did in his own way and for his own motive saw a golden opportunity to “feather his own nest.” Their lack of credibility is reflected when their reliability is called into question and the Tribunal is satisfied that on a number of important issues their evidence on those issues was not only unreliable but also … dishonest.”

In the absence of reliable direct evidence to establish that the players had used TB4, the decision of the AADT ultimately turned on these adverse credibility findings.

In relation to the first element, ASADA led (predominantly) documentary evidence to demonstrate that two shipments of substances (in December 2011 and February 2012) were procured from China, both of which included TB4, and were provided to Alavi. A substance in the second shipment was tested in May 2012 at a laboratory connected to the University of Melbourne, and the results proved the substance was TB4. As such, the substance that was purported to be TB4 in both shipments, as a result of the test results, was TB4.

After a thorough examination of the evidence and arguments of the players, and in particular, the fact that the majority of evidence had been obtained from dishonest witnesses, the AADT held that the first shipment had occurred, but that the second shipment had not. However, the AADT still considered the veracity of the test results, and whether they gave rise to the position that TB4 was procured in the first shipment. Faced with contrasting expert reports, which gave margin for error in the test results, the AADT ultimately held that “it is possible it was [TB4], but the Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that it was”.

In relation to the second element, the AADT was not comfortably satisfied that TB4 was compounded or provided to Dank. As a result of its findings relating to the first and second elements, the AADT did not “consider it necessary to consider the third element…as it is dependent upon the first and second elements…being established and neither has been established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal”.

Accordingly, the AADT was not comfortably satisfied that the first limb required to prove the ADRV was made out, and exonerated each player of their charge.

Non-analytical positive “use”

The Decision is a classic non-analytical positive “use” case.[4] In this class of cases, as no adverse analytical finding is recorded, the relevant anti-doping organisation must rely on a combination of direct and/or circumstantial evidence in order to discharge its burden of proving use of a prohibited substance or method.

Comfortable Satisfaction

Prior to the implementation of the WADA Code, sports arbitration panels embryonically decided to apply a ‘comfortable satisfaction’ standard of proof; less than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt but more than the ordinary civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities.[5]

This standard was preferred due to sports disciplinary cases not being criminal in nature, but rather, a private law of association type.[6] This principle has been consistently upheld and was espoused as such by the Swiss Federal Tribunal: “the duty of proof and assessment of evidence [are] problems which cannot be regulated, in private law cases, on the basis of concepts specific to criminal law”.[7]

However, precisely where this standard falls between the criminal and civil standards is unclear.[8] That anti-doping cases are presented in a quasi-criminal manner suggests they should be closer to the latter, but the private nature of sports disciplinary cases suggests that the lesser standard is more appropriate.

This distinction is significantly important to WADA overturning the Decision. In its press release after receiving the Statement of Appeal, the CAS recorded that “WADA requests that the CAS issue a new decision based on an appropriate burden of proof and evidentiary standards”. As such, it is clear that WADA considers that the standard of proof applied by the AADT was too high when considering the evidence.

However, an analysis of a number of prior decisions suggests that the standard of proof in this class of cases has always been close to the criminal standard. The jurisprudence suggests that Panels rely solely on direct and incontrovertible testimonial, documentary, and scientific evidence to sanction individuals for “use” violations.

pre WADA Code cases

In French[9], it was alleged that French used prohibited substances after the discovery of a bucket of used syringes, needles containing traces of a prohibited substance, and a supplement whose label stated that it contained a prohibited substance, inside his room at his athlete residence. The CAS, however, was not comfortably satisfied as there was “no direct evidence that Mr. French had used the material in the sense that no-one saw him use it and he has consistently denied use”.[10] Furthermore, that the label stated the name of the prohibited substance was not sufficient to prove that the supplement actually contained the prohibited substance.[11]

In A., B., C., D., E. v IOC[12], five simultaneously-decided cases, the CAS held that admissions of undertaking or performing blood transfusions, coupled with the discovery of instruments and chemicals necessary for blood-doping in their residence during the 2002 Winter Olympics, was sufficient evidence to sanction four individuals for using a prohibited method. In the absence of direct evidence against Mr. E, the only of the five whom argued that “he had nothing to do with the paraphernalia found in the chalet and that he did not perform any type of autologous or other blood manipulation while he was at the 2002 Winter Games”[13], the Panel issued a warning only.[14]

In Collins[15], a case deriving from the BALCO scandal, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) relied on a cache of emails where Collins admitted to using prohibited substances (both EPO and the hybrid testosterone “cream” developed by BALCO)[16], as well as test results of independent blood and urine tests arranged by BALCO.[17] Following expert testimony, the Panel found beyond a reasonable doubt (as was required by the relevant IAAF Rules) that her blood samples demonstrated EPO use in 2002 and 2003[18] and that her urine samples demonstrated “a pattern of testosterone and epitestosterone levels that can only be explained by the illegal use of BALCO’s cream”.[19]

post WADA Code cases

In Gaines[20] and Montgomery[21], two further BALCO cases heard simultaneously, following argument on the appropriate standard, the Panels stated: (emphasis added)

“From this perspective, and in view of the nature and gravity of the allegations at issue in these proceedings, there is no practical distinction between the standards of proof advocated by USADA and the Respondents. It makes little, if indeed any, difference whether a “beyond reasonable doubt” or “comfortable satisfaction” standard is applied to determine the claims against the Respondents. This will become all the more manifest in due course, when the Panel renders its awards on the merits of the USADA’s claims. Either way, USADA bears the burden of proving, by strong evidence commensurate with the serious claims it makes, that the Respondents committed the doping offences in question”.[22]

Similar to Collins, the USADA relied on a multitude of testimonial, documentary and scientific evidence to allege use of a prohibited substance. However, the Panel ultimately decided that admissions about their use of the infamous “Cream” developed by BALCO to their ex-teammate Kelli White, was “sufficient in and out of itself”[23] to comfortably satisfy themselves of the athletes’ guilt.

In Hamilton[24], the Panel cited the discussion of the appropriate standard referred to in Gaines and Montgomery but did not explicitly apply it.[25] After upholding the reliability and validity of the homologous transfusion test of Hamilton’s blood samples, the Panel relied upon these test results to be comfortably satisfied that Hamilton had used a prohibited method.[26] A similar approach was undertaken by the Panel in Pechstein[27] to find that %retics peaks in her blood sample of February 2009 were abnormal and that accordingly she had used a prohibited method.

In the Cyprus case[28], WADA and FIFA appealed a decision of the Cyprus Football Association (CFA). Prior to a number of league matches, a club coach administered two pills (which he had independently sourced) to the starting line-up, claiming them to be caffeine pills and/or vitamins.[29] Two players subsequently recorded an adverse analytical finding for a prohibited substance, while five others who did not test positive admitted to investigators that they had also used the pills. Only the two players and the coach were sanctioned by the CFA. WADA alleged that the CFA had erroneously failed to sanction the five players. The Panel was not comfortably satisfied of this conclusion:

199. The Panel notes, in fact, that there is no evidence that the actual pills individually used by each of the Other Players contained a prohibited substance. Indeed some players took the pills, were subsequently tested and there was no adverse analytical finding.

200. No clear cut evidence was brought to show that…the pills administered…were “plain steroids” and not “caffeine pills” contaminated by steroids”.[30]

The most famous case in this class, albeit never reviewed by an arbitration panel, was Armstrong.[31] The USADA relied on witness testimony which provided direct evidence of Armstrong using prohibited substances or prohibited methods during the 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 Tour de France races. The USADA also utilised financial records linking Armstrong to the disgraced sports doctor, Dr. Michele Ferrari, as well as undertaking retesting of old samples which purportedly demonstrated EPO use at the 1999 Tour de France, and provided a “compelling argument consistent with blood doping” at the 2010 Tour de France.

Conclusions

Two overriding conclusions can be drawn.

The first is that there is no definitive answer to the question of what evidence shall be presented to prove a non-positive analytical “use” case.[32] As stated by the Panels in Gaines and Montgomery:

“[d]oping offences can be proved by a variety of means; and this is nowhere more true than in “non-analytical positive” cases such as the present”.[33]

The second is that the standard of proof is significantly closer to the criminal than the civil standard. Indeed, in Gaines and Montgomery, the Panels could draw no distinction between beyond a reasonable doubt and comfortable satisfaction, taking into account the allegations raised and the sanctions requested. This elevated standard becomes clear in those matters which relied solely upon circumstantial as opposed to direct evidence.

In French and the Cyprus case, the Panels held that admissions could be relied upon only where there was unambiguous evidence that the substance used either was or contained a prohibited substance. Thus, a label on supplement packaging which lists a prohibited substance as an ingredient, or the ingestion of a pill taken from the same batch as one ingested by a teammate who subsequently tests positive, are not enough on their own to comfortably satisfy a Panel that a used substance was a prohibited substance.

Effectively, the cases require the party bearing the evidentiary burden to prove that the used substance or method was without doubt the substance or method alleged; in other words, the highest possible standard of ‘comfortable satisfaction’. Even in Pechstein, where the Panel emphatically rejected the Appellant’s request to apply a higher than normal standard of proof and stated that it would apply the “normal comfortable satisfaction standard”,[34] the Panel still blurred the lines between the two after systematically reviewing and rejecting each of the Appellant’s argument, leaving little doubt in its own mind that the use of a prohibited method was the only possible reason for the blood abnormalities.

To meet this standard, the cases articulate that only direct evidence should be adduced. This includes: admitting to using a proven prohibited substance or prohibited method; scientific evidence of which no credible explanation other than the use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method is possible; scientific evidence which demonstrates that a substance used is a prohibited substance; witness observations of use; and witness testimony of direct admissions.

One further conclusion can be drawn: WADA, on the basis of its current evidence, is unlikely to overturn the Decision. The inherited ASADA case was wholly circumstantial. It did not contain direct, incontrovertible evidence from any of the classes seen in the previous cases. Its key witnesses chose not to testify, nor could they be compelled under Australian law, and nor is it likely that they can be compelled under Swiss law to attend at the CAS.[35] As such, WADA’s prospects of success hinge upon its ability to adduce new and direct evidence of the use of TB4 by the players. 

Will R57.3 of the CAS Code prevent WADA from adducing new and direct evidence?

R57 of the CAS Code provides that a Panel in the appeal arbitration division has “full power to review the facts and the law”. Appeals are heard de novo and any procedural fairness issues deriving from the first-instance are thus automatically cured. This interpretation has been upheld in numerous Awards and the Swiss Federal Tribunal.[36]

R57.3 of the CAS Code, introduced in 2013, provides one limitation: “[t]he Panel has the discretion to exclude evidence presented by the parties if it was available to them or could reasonably have been discovered by them before the challenged decision was rendered”. This is consistent with Swiss procedural law in that a document can only be adduced, at an appellate hearing, if it did not exist at the time of the first instance hearing or hearings or was not in the possession of the appellant at the time.[37]

According to Rigozzi et al, in appeals against decisions rendered by sports-governing bodies, the scope of R57.3 should extend only to those cases “where the adducing of pre-existing evidence amounts to abusive or otherwise unacceptable procedural conduct by a party”.[38]

Mavromatis characterises de novo review as “not only desirable, but also necessary for a number of reasons, to the extent that the previous instance is not an independent arbitral tribunal but the internal body of a sports federation”.[39] As such, R57.3 should be interpreted “as not to circumvent the core principle of the Panel’s full power of review”[40].

In two recent Awards, the Panels held that this discretion should be exercised with caution, in situations where a party may have engaged in abusive procedural behaviour or in any other circumstances where the Panel might, in its discretion, consider it either unfair or inappropriate to admit new evidence.[41]

In SC FC Sportul Studentesc SA[42], the Sole Arbitrator excluded the principal evidence supporting the appeal as he was not provided any satisfactory explanation why it could not be submitted or adduced during the two sports-governing body proceedings.[43]

Hence, it is only in rare cases that the CAS limits its power of full review. Thus, as long as new evidence adduced by WADA is neither abusive nor can be construed as unacceptable procedural conduct, it is highly unlikely to be excluded. Levy has suggested that such exclusions may give rise to an appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal due to the denial of the right to be heard.[44] In any event, WADA was not a party at first instance, so it remains questionable whether R57.3 may even be utilised by the players. 

Conclusion

The biggest soap opera in the history of Australian sport will come to a conclusion some time prior to the 2016 AFL season. At the time of publishing, the CAS has recently announced the hearing timeline.

Media reports have recently suggested that WADA ordered retesting of samples obtained from the players in 2011-2012, resulting in two samples demonstrating abnormally high levels of TB4. As set out above, the previous cases suggest that only this type of direct evidence will be able to convince a Panel to the requisite standard. The challenge for WADA, given the length of the ASADA investigation, is to find it.

An independent report commissioned by Essendon published in May 2013, graphically described its supplements programme as “a pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged or documented within the Club in the period under review”. It is not disputed that the players must ultimately take full responsibility for each substance that presents in their body.

However, at the same time, the gross inadequacies in the governance at Essendon during the period – failures in documentation and record keeping, lack of (proper) informed consent for the players, uncertainty in the supplements administrated, and the creation of an unsafe work environment, among others – for which the club was already heavily sanctioned and which gave rise to the investigation in the first place, ironically appears to be the main obstacle preventing WADA from discharging its burden of proof.

[1] AFL Anti-Doping Code (2010 Edition), Article 15.1.

[2] AFL Anti-Doping Code (2010 Edition), Article 15.1.

^[3] ASADA v 34 Players and One Support Person [2014] VSC 635. 

[4] See e.g. Richard H McLaren, An Overview of Non-Analytical Positive & Circumstantial Evidence Cases in Sports, 16 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 193 (2006).

[5] See e.g. N., J., Y., W. v Federation Internationale de Natation CAS 98/208.

[6] Ibid.

[7] SFT, 5P83/1999, para. 3.d.

[8] Michael Straubel, Enhancing the Performance of the Doping Court: How the Court of Arbitration for Sport Can Do Its Job Better, 36 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 1203 (2005), at 1270.

[9] Mark French vs Australian Sports Commission and Cycling Australia, CAS 2004/A/651.

[10] French at 58.

[11] French at 51.

[12] A., B., C., D. & E. v International Olympic Committee, CAS 2002/A/389, 390, 391, 392, 393.

[13] A., B., C., D. & E. v IOC at 53.

[14] A., B., C., D. & E. v IOC at 53.

[15] United States Anti-Doping Agency vs Michelle Collins, AAA No. 30 190 00658 04.

[16] Collins at 1.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4.

[17] Collins at 1.3, 4.11 – 4.24.

[18] Collins at 4.16.

[19] Collins at 4.17.

[20] United States Anti-Doping Agency vs Chryste Gaines, CAS 2004/O/649.

[21] United States Anti-Doping Agency vs Tim Montgomery, CAS 2004/O/645

[22] Gaines at 36, Montgomery at 36.

[23] Gaines at 52, Montgomery at 50.

[24]Tyler Hamilton vs United States Anti-Doping Agency and Union Cycliste International, CAS 2005/A/884.

[25] Hamilton at 47.

[26] Hamilton at 91.

[27] Claudia Pechstein vs International Skating Union, CAS 2009/A/1912.

[28] World Anti-Doping Agency and Federazione International de Football Association v Cyprus Football Association, Carlos Marques, Leonel Medeiros, Edward Eranosian, Angelos Efthymiou, Yiannis Sfakianakis, Dmytro Mykhailenko, Samir Bengeloun, Bernardo Vasconcelos, CAS 2009/A/1817.

[29] WADA & FIFA v CFA et al at 14.

[30] WADA & FIFA v CFA et al at 198-200.

[31] United States Anti-Doping Agency vs Lance Armstrong, Reasoned decision of the USADA on disqualification and eligibility (10 October 2012).

[32] McLaren at 212.

[33] Gaines at 45, Montgomery at 45.

[34] Pechstein at 123-126.

[35] See this piece for an excellent analysis of the operation of the powers of compulsion within the Swiss Public International Law Act vis-à-vis Australian law: < http://sociallitigator.com/2015/05/25/essendon-supplements-saga-is-it-up-up-and-away-to-switzerland/>.

[36] see FC Sion v Federation Internationale de Football Association & Al-Ahly Sporting Club, CAS 2009/A/1880; E v Federation Internationale de Football Association, CAS 2009/A/1881; Eintracht Braunschweig GmbH & Co. KG a. A. v. Olympiakos FC CAS 2012/A/2836; SFT 4A_386/2010

[37] Article 317 of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code.

[38] Antonio Rigozzi /Erika Hassler / Brianna Quin, The 2011, 2012 and 2013 revisions to the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, in: Jusletter 3 juin 2013, at 14.

[39] Despina Mavromatis, The Panel’s Right to Exclude Evidence Based on Article R57 Para. 3 CAS Code: a Limit to CAS’ Full Power of Review, in CAS Bulletin 1/2014, at 56.

[40] Mavromatis at 56.

[41] See Zamalek Sporting Club vs Accra Hearts of Oak Sporting Club, CAS 2014/A/3518; MFK Dubnica v FC Parma, CAS 2014/A/3486.

[42] SC FC Sportul Studentesc SA v Romanian Football Federation & several players, CAS 2013/A/3286-3294.

[43] SC FC Sportul Studentesc SA at 66-70.

[44] Roy Levy, The new CAS rules – what you need to know, at < http://www.lawinsport.com/blog/roy-levy/item/the-new-cas-rules-what-you-need-to-know>.