The European Commission’s competition decisions in the area of sport, which set out broad principles regarding the interface between sports-related activities and EU competition law, are widely publicized. As a result of the decentralization of EU competition law enforcement, however, enforcement activity has largely shifted to the national level. Since 2004, national competition authorities (NCAs) and national courts are empowered to fully apply the EU competition rules on anti-competitive agreements (Article 101 TFEU) and abuse of a dominant position (Article 102 TFEU).

Even though NCAs have addressed a series of interesting competition cases (notably dealing with the regulatory aspects of sport) during the last ten years, the academic literature has largely overlooked these developments. This is unfortunate since all stakeholders (sports organisations, clubs, practitioners, etc.) increasingly need to learn from pressing issues arising in national cases and enforcement decisions. In a series of blog posts we will explore these unknown territories of the application of EU competition law to sport.

We kick-start the series with a recent investigation of the Swedish National Competition Authority (NCA) into a so-called duty of loyalty clause applied by the Swedish Bodybuilding and Fitness Federation (Svenska Kroppskulturförbundet, SKKF).[1]

Source: http://www.scmp.com/photos/recent/all/1046780

The facts

The SKKF is the only national member of the International Bodybuilding Federation (IFBB) and organises various championships in the sport of bodybuilding and fitness in Sweden. It is essential for Swedish clubs, individual athletes, and officials to be a member of the SKKF as this is prerequisite for participation in IFBB international competitions.

The IFBB’s rules and regulations form an integral part of the SKKF’s Statutes. According to the SKKF’s rules, members who compete or otherwise participate in contests that are not approved or authorised by the SKFF or IFBB can be fined or suspended (i.e. the duty of loyalty clause). Athletes who have taken part in an unsanctioned event must also test for doping, at their own expenses, before they are allowed to compete at SKKF or IFBB events again.

In October 2013, BMR Sport Nutrition AB, a manufacturer of nutritional and bodybuilding supplements that also occasionally organises unsanctioned bodybuilding and fitness events in Sweden, filed a complaint before the NCA alleging that this rule violates Article 101 TFEU and Chapter 2, Article 1 of the Swedish Competition Act as it prevents event organisers from effectively competing with the SKKF (i.e. they are deprived from the chance to gather the human resources necessary for a successful event). The complainant submitted evidence that the threat of a fine and/or the withdrawal of their license by the SKKF effectively deterred athletes from participating in non-sanctioned events.

The context

The Swedish bodybuilding case follows a 2011 decision of the NCA, which ordered the Swedish Automobile Sports Federation (Svenska Bilsportförbundet, SBF) to abolish its rules preventing members from participating in motorsport events not authorized by the KKF.[2] On appeal by SBF, the Swedish Market Court upheld the decision in its entirety.[3]

This “precedent” case dealt with two duty of loyalty clauses in the SBF’s Common Rules prohibiting officials and contestants, licensed by the SBF, to officiate or participate in motor sport events other than those organised by the SBF or its member clubs. A violation of these provisions could result in a fine and/or withdrawal of the licence to officiate or compete in SBF events.

The NCA and the Market Court established that the contested rules constituted a decision by an association of undertakings. While the NCA had only applied national competition law, the Market Court, having defined the organisation of motorsport competitions in Sweden as the relevant product market, found that trade between the Member States was affected and therefore also applied Article 101 TFEU. According to the Court, the mere existence of the rules considerably distorted competition because they led to an absolute ban for SBF members to participate in non-sanctioned events. It concluded that, even if the rules would be regarded as serving a legitimate objective, the total ban could not be considered proportional to achieving such an objective. Moreover, the Court concluded that the restriction of competition could not benefit from an exemption under Article 101(3) TFEU or Chapter 2, Article 1 of the Swedish Competition Act.

While the Market Court’s judgment is far from innovative and carefully followed the proportionality test adopted by the Court of Justice in Meca-Medina, the case drew much media attention and raised concerns and criticism from the Swedish sports movement. Having demonstrated the remedial potential of EU competition law to challenge organisational sporting rules, it was only a matter of time before further national enforcement action would result from this case. 

The outcome

In a statement responding to the filing of the complaint by BMR Sport Nutrition AB, the chairman of the SKKF contested the apparent analogy with the SBF (motorsport) case. He essentially put forward three reasons. First, the SKKF is a non-profit organisation that pursues an aim in the general interest (i.e. the promotion of sport) and reinvests all its income, which is insufficient to cover its costs, in its sports activities, e.g. to fund education and training activities, doping tests, and travel expenses of the national team. This precludes the assumption that it pursues an economic activity. It follows that the SKKF cannot be regarded as an undertaking for the purposes of competition law (contrary to commercially successful sports associations). Second, the SKKF does not act independently of the will of its members. Similar to trade unions, member athletes voluntarily submit themselves to the applicable regulations when they join a member club. They can move to change certain rules if they find, in a true democratic spirit, a majority for such change. Alternatively, member athletes can choose to leave their club and join another association. Third, the right of freedom of association excludes the rule-making powers of the SKKF from the ambit of the competition rules.

Nevertheless, following several meetings between the NCA and the SKKF, the latter committed no longer to suspend or fine athletes, coaches, officials or judges that participate in non-sanctioned events.[4] The requirement that they must test for doping, at their own expense, was not abolished. According to the SKFF, this requirement was necessary to comply with the IFBB anti-doping rules, which conform to the provisions of the World Anti-Doping Code.

Given the commitment of the SKKF to no longer apply the duty of loyalty clause, the NCA decided to close the investigation without concluding whether competition law had been infringed.

Commentary

Those familiar with sports-related competition law cases will surely recognize the arguments of the chairman of the SKKF to assert immunity from the application of the competition rules. While they have been tried and tested many times, also before the Union courts, these arguments keep popping up. So let’s take a closer at why they are not accepted.

Regarding the claim that the SKKF is a non-profit organisation that exclusively aims to promote the development of the sport, it must be recalled that – if there still was any doubt - in Meca-Medina the Court of Justice made clear that the qualification of a rule as “purely sporting” was insufficient to remove the body adopting that rule (or the person engaging in the activity covered by it) from the scope of the Treaty. It thus must be examined, irrespective of the nature of the rule, whether the specific requirements of the various provisions of the Treaty are met. For the purpose of the competition rules, the notion of “undertaking” is a core jurisdictional element. According to established case law, this concept covers “any entity engaged in an economic activity regardless of the legal status of the entity or the way in which it is financed”.[5]

In an attempt to escape the bite of the competition rules, various other sports associations have time and again asserted that they cannot be regarded as “undertakings” because their objective is not the pursuit of economic interests. Even when only considering their regulatory functions, this reasoning finds no support in the case law. The Court of Justice has consistently held that the concept of undertaking does not presuppose a profit-making intention. The fact that entities are non-profit making has no effect on their classification as undertakings.[6] Similarly, the fact that entities pursue cultural or social activities does not in itself prevent these activities from being regarded as economic.[7]

In the case at hand, it is clear that in addition to the SKKF, even assuming that it organises bodybuilding and fitness events without seeking to make profit, other entities like BMR Sport Nutrition AB are also engaged in that activity (and do seek to make a profit). The SKKF offers goods or services on a market in competition with others. The success or economic survival of the SKKF ultimately depends on it being able to impose its services to the detriment of those offered by other event organisers. Consequently, the SKKF must be considered as an undertaking engaged in the markets for the organisation and marketing of bodybuilding and fitness events.

Regarding the somewhat chucklesome claim that the SKKF should be qualified as a trade union (or other professional association) that cannot act independently of the will of its members, it is sufficient to stress that Article 101 TFEU also applies to “associations of undertakings”. A federation like the SKKF, the beacon of democracy it may be, is not an association of employees but (also) of member clubs that engage in economic activities. Hence, the result of the delimitation between the federation acting “in its own right” or “merely as an executive organ of an agreement between its members” is irrelevant: Article 101 TFEU still applies to its regulations.

Regarding the claim based on the principle of freedom of association, indeed protected in the Swedish constitution as well as in the EU legal order, it is difficult to see how the duty of loyalty clause could be considered an inevitable result thereof. In any event, the Court of Justice has made clear that this right cannot be so absolute as to afford sports federations’ complete immunity from EU law.[8] In other words, the need to guarantee sports’ right of self-regulation cannot be a blank check to avoid scrutiny of measures that may conceal the pursuit of economic interest. Provided that its rules are proportional to a legitimate objective, SKKF should have nothing to fear from the competition rules.

So contrary to what the chairman of the SKKF contented, the analogy between its rule and the contested rule in the SBF (motorsport) case was accurate. A confrontation with this inconvenient truth was sufficient to convince the SKKF to commit itself to no longer suspend or fine athletes, coaches, officials or judges for participating in non-sanctioned competitions. That the requirement of a doping test (for those having participated in competing events) could remain clearly illustrates that competition law will leave unscratched restrictive sporting rules that are deemed inherent and proportionate to the organisation and proper conduct of sport. It almost makes you wonder what all the fuss is about when competition law confronts the world of sport.

One final note: the contested “SKKF” rule is the national equivalent of the clause contained in the IFBB Constitution (which forms an integral part of the SKKF’s statutes). Article 19.4.7 stipulates that:

“Any athlete or official who participates in a competition or event not approved or sanctioned by the IFBB, may be fined, suspended or expelled. The amount of the fine as well as the suspension period will be decided by the IFBB Disciplinary Commission … Once the suspension has been completed and before participating in an IFBB competition or event, the athlete must be drug tested at his or her own expenses”

Participation in an event or competition includes (but is not limited to!) competing, guest posing, giving a seminar, lecture or similar presentation, judging, officiating, allowing the use of one’s name and/or likeness for promotional purposes, and/or taking part in a non-IFBB sanctioned competition or event in any other way, shape or form.

To the IFBB and all other European member federations, who have to the author’s knowledge not decided to no longer enforce or abolish this rule: beware!

[1] Swedish Competition Authority (Konkurrensverket), 28 May 2014, Bodybuilding and Fitness Competitions, Decision dnr. 590/2013, http://www.kkv.se/upload/Filer/Konkurrens/2014/13-0590.pdf

[2] Swedish Competition Authority (Konkurrensverket) 13 May 2011, Swedish Automobile Sports Federation, Decision dnr. 709/2009, available at http://www.kkv.se/upload/Filer/Konkurrens/2011/Beslut/09-0709.pdf

[3] Swedish Market Court's ruling 2012:16 in Case A 5/11, Svenska Bilsportförbundet v Konkurrensverket (December 20, 2012), http://www.kkv.se/t/NewsArchive.aspx?id=529

[4] The SKKF notified its member athletes and clubs of the changes via its newsletter and website.

[5] Case C-41/90 Höfner and Elser [1991] ECR I-1979, para. 21.

[6] See e.g. Case C-222/04 Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze v Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA and others [2006] ECR I-289; Case C-475/99 Firma Ambulanz Glöckner v Landkreis Südwestpfalz [2001] ECR I-8089; Joined Cases 209/78 to 215/78 and 218/78 Van Landewyck v Commission [1980] ECR 3125; C-244/94 Fédération Française des Sociétés d’Assurances and others v Ministère de l'Agriculture [1995] ECR I-4013; Joined Cases C-115/97 to C-117/07 Brentjens’ Handelsonderneming BV v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor de Handel in Bouwmaterialen [1999] ECR I-6025.

[7] See e.g. Joined case C-180/98 to C-184/98 Pavel Pavlov and Others v Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten [2000] ECR I-6451; Case C‑218/00 Cisal [2002] ECR I‑691.

[8] Case C-415/93 Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association and others v Bosman and others [1995] ECR I-4921, paras. 79-80

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>.