TAS - CAS Bulletin 2024-2

2024/02 Bulletin TAS CAS Bulletin Boletín del TAS0

TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT/COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT/TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE ______________________________________________________________________________

Bulletin TAS CAS Bulletin Boletín del TAS 2024/2

Lausanne 2024Table des matières/Table of Contents/Indice de Contenidos

Editorial ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Articles et commentaires / Articles and Commentaries / Artículos y comentarios ................................. 3 Review of Recent Jurisprudence in Doping Matters: Substantial Assistance, Whereabouts Information, and Unidentified Transdermal Administration Markus Manninen .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Arbitration and Olympism: the CAS ad hoc Divisions Matthieu Reeb and Despina Mavromati .......................................................................................................... 21

Whereabouts Failure in CAS Jurisprudence Vladimir Novak and Liam Rowley .................................................................................................................... 27

Jurisprudence majeure / Leading Cases / Casos importantes ............................................................ 34 CAS 2021/A/7736 Qarabağ FC v. Union des Associations Européenne de Football (UEFA) 16 November 2023 .............................................................................................................................................. 35 CAS 2022/A/8598 Hungarian Football Federation (HFF) v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) 24 February 2023.................................................................................................................................................. 41 CAS 2022/A/8638 Mexican Swimming Federation (MSF) v. World Aquatics 31 March 2023 ...................................................................................................................................................... 45

Association (FIFA) 24 February 2023.................................................................................................................................................. 41 CAS 2022/A/8638 Mexican Swimming Federation (MSF) v. World Aquatics 31 March 2023 ...................................................................................................................................................... 45 CAS 2021/A/8230 Real Betis Balompié S.A.D. v. SSC Napoli S.p.A. 29 June 2023 ......................................................................................................................................................... 52 CAS 2022/A/8747 KF Tirana v. Tim Vayrynen & Kuopion Palloseura 13 November 2023 .............................................................................................................................................. 57 CAS 2022/A/8802 Nijat Rahimov v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) & CAS 2022/A/9048 IWF v. Nijat Rahimov 20 September 2023 .............................................................................................................................................. 63 CAS 2022/A/8881 Iván Santiago Diaz v. MŠK Žilina 28 November 2023 .............................................................................................................................................. 69 CAS 2022/A/8963 Al-Faisaly Club v. Alexander Merkel & Gazişehir GFK 14 June 2023 ......................................................................................................................................................... 73 CAS 2022/A/9170 Royal Antwerp Football Club (FC) v. Wydad Athletic Club (AC) 25 July 2023 ........................................................................................................................................................... 79 CAS 2023/A/9371 A.S. Roma v. Sporting Clube de Portugal, award of 27 October 2023 27 October 2023 .................................................................................................................................................. 86 CAS 2023/A/9423 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Polish Anti-Doping Agency (POLADA) & Natalia Maliszewska 5 September 2023 ................................................................................................................................................. 89 CAS 2023/A/9501 Dansk Boldspil-Union, FC Nordsjaelland & Batuhan Zidan Sertdemir v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) 5 September 2023 (operative part of 15 May 2023) ....................................................................................... 95

CAS 2023/A/9501 Dansk Boldspil-Union, FC Nordsjaelland & Batuhan Zidan Sertdemir v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) 5 September 2023 (operative part of 15 May 2023) ....................................................................................... 95 CAS 2023/A/9757 International Boxing Association (IBA) v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) 2 April 2024......................................................................................................................................................... 101Sélection de sentences arbitrales rendues par la Chambre ad hoc du TAS pendant les Jeux Olympique de Paris 2024 / Selection of arbitral awards rendered by the CAS Ad Hoc Division during the Olympic Games Paris 2024 / Selección de laudos arbitrale dictados por la División Ad Hoc del TAS durante los Juegos Olímpicos de París 2024 ................................................................................................... 109 CAS OG 24/05 Livia Avancini v. World Athletics (WA), CAS OG 24/06 Max Batista v. WA and CAS OG 24/07 Hygor Bezerra v. WA 1 August 2024 (operative part of 26 July 2024) ............................................................................................ 110 CAS OG 24/09 Canadian Olympic Committee & Canada Soccer v. FIFA & New Zealand Football & New Zealand Olympic Committee Inc. & Fédération Française de Football & Comité National Olympique et Sportif Français & Federación Colombiana de Fútbol & Comité Olímpico Colombiano 7 August 2024 (operative part of 31 July 2024) ............................................................................................ 115 CAS OG 24/14 Marta Vieira da Silva, Comitê Olímpico do Brasil & Confederação Brasileira de Futebol v. FIFA 16 August 2024 (operative part of 6 August 2024)....................................................................................... 119 CAS OG 24-15 Federation Romanian Gymnastics (FRG) and Ana Maria Bărbosu v. Donatella Sacchi

Futebol v. FIFA 16 August 2024 (operative part of 6 August 2024)....................................................................................... 119 CAS OG 24-15 Federation Romanian Gymnastics (FRG) and Ana Maria Bărbosu v. Donatella Sacchi and Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG) & CAS OG 24-16 FRG and Sabrina ManecaVoinea v. Donatella Sacchi and FIG 14 August 2024 (operative part of 10 August 2024) .................................................................................... 123 CAS OG 24/17 Vinesh Phogat v. United World Wrestling & IOC 16 August 2024 (operative part 14 August 2024) ......................................................................................... 128

Jugements du Tribunal fédéral / Judgements of the Federal Tribunal / Sentencias del Tribunal federal 133 4A_256/2023, 6 novembre 2023 Fédération Équatorienne de Football c. Fédération Péruvienne de Football et Fédération Chilienne de Football (A et FIFA parties intéressées) ........................................................................................................ 134 4A_430/2023, 23 février 2024

A. c. B. ................................................................................................................................................................. 142

4A_442/2023, 11 janvier 2024

A. c. Agence Mondiale Anti-Dopage et Russian Anti-Doping Agency .................................................... 146

4A_112/2024, 3 juillet 2024 Fédération Internationale d’Haltérophilie c. A.............................................................................................. 149 4A_264/2024, 12 septembre 2024 International Boxing Association v. Comité International Olympique .................................................... 154 4A_346/2024, 2 septembre 2024

A. c. B. ................................................................................................................................................................. 159

Informations diverses / Miscellanous /Información miscelánea .................................................................... 163 Sélection de publications récentes relatives au TAS /Selected recent CAS publications/ Selección de publicaciones recientes del CAS ...................................................................................................................... 1641

A. c. B. ................................................................................................................................................................. 159

Informations diverses / Miscellanous /Información miscelánea .................................................................... 163 Sélection de publications récentes relatives au TAS /Selected recent CAS publications/ Selección de publicaciones recientes del CAS ...................................................................................................................... 1641

Editorial

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) opened two temporary offices in Paris for the 2024 Olympic Summer Games (the Games) that were held from 26 July to 11 August 2024 in Paris (France). The CAS Ad Hoc Division, which resolves any legal disputes that arise during the Games, operates at every edition of the Summer and Winter Olympic Games since 1996, as well as at other major sporting events. The CAS Ad hoc Division guarantees free access to arbitration services conducted within a timeframe consistent with the competition schedule as decisions could be rendered within 24 hours in urgent matters.

The second temporary office was a section of the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) which adjudicates anti -doping-related matters arising during the Games as a firstinstance authority. This structure, in operation since its inauguration at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games, handles doping cases referred to it by the International Testing Agency (ITA) in accordance with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Anti-doping Rules. The CAS ADD became permanent, also outside the Olympic Games, in 2019.

Both offices were located within the Tribunal de Paris in the 17th arrondissement of Paris and operate d from 16 July 2024 until 11 August 2024. It was the first time that CAS offices were hosted within the premises of a real tribunal during the Olympic Games.

It should be noted that a s part of the Paris 2024 Olympic s, the Paris Bar Association played a very important role by providing the sports movement with pro bono lawyers

offices were hosted within the premises of a real tribunal during the Olympic Games.

It should be noted that a s part of the Paris 2024 Olympic s, the Paris Bar Association played a very important role by providing the sports movement with pro bono lawyers helping athletes to proceed before the CAS ad hoc divisions, and also in other situations outside a CAS context.

The CAS Ad Hoc Division in Paris was composed as follows: President , Mr Michael Lenard (USA); Co -Presidents, Dr Elisabeth Steiner (Austria) and Ms Carole Malinvaud (France). The arbitrators present in Paris (in alphabetical order) were the Hon. Dr Annabelle Bennett (Australia); Ms Carine Dupeyron (France); Ms Laila El Shentenawi (Egypt); Dr Hamid Gharavi (France/Iran); Mr Lars Hilliger (Denmark); Prof. LU Song (China); Mr Roberto Moreno (Paraguay); Prof. Philippe Sands (UK/France) and Ms Kristen Thorsness (USA). The arbitrators available remotely were Ms Raphaëlle Favre Schnyder (Switzerland); Dr Heiner Kahlert (Germany) and Dr Leanne O'Leary (UK/New Zealand).

The CAS ADD in Paris was composed as follows: Presiden t, Mr Ivo Eusebio (Switzerland); Deputy President, Mr David

W. Rivkin (USA). The arbitrators present in Paris (in alphabetical order) were Mr John

Boultbee (Australia); Prof. Matt Mitten (USA); Judge Martina Spreitzer -Kropiunik (Austria) and Judge Mark Williams (Australia). The arbitrators available remotely were Prof. Dr Jens Evald (Denmark/New Zealand) and Mr Markus Manninen (Finland).

During the Olympic Games, the CAS Ad Hoc Division dealt with twenty cases whereas the CAS ADD rendered two awards.

(Australia). The arbitrators available remotely were Prof. Dr Jens Evald (Denmark/New Zealand) and Mr Markus Manninen (Finland).

During the Olympic Games, the CAS Ad Hoc Division dealt with twenty cases whereas the CAS ADD rendered two awards. A selection of awards rendered by the CAS Ad Hoc Division appears in this issue.

We are also pleased to publish in this Bulletin a “ Review of Recent Jurisprudence in Doping Matters ” written by Markus Manninen, CAS arbitrator. Still in the field of doping, the article co-written by Vladimir Novak, CAS arbitrator and Liam Rowley concentrates on the issue of w hereabouts failure in CAS Jurisprudence . Finally, the article co -written by Matthieu Reeb, CAS Director General , and Despina Mavromati, CAS arbitrator, entitled “Arbitration and Olympism: the CAS ad hoc Divisions”, focuses on the mate rial and temporal jurisdiction of the CAS ad hoc Divisions during the Olympic Games.

As usual, because most CAS cases are football-related, this new issue of the Bulletin2

includes a majority of selected “leading cases” related to football, namely ten football cases, two doping cases in speed-skating and weightlifting respectively and two governance cases in aquatics and boxing respectively.

Lastly, summaries of the most recent judgements rendered by the Swiss Federal Tribunal in connection with CAS decisions have been enclosed in this Bulletin.

We wish you a pleasant reading of this new edition of the CAS Bulletin.

Matthieu Reeb CAS Director General3

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Articles et commentaires Articles and Commentaries Artículos y comentarios4

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Review of Recent Jurisprudence in Doping Matters: Substantial Assistance, Whereabouts Information, and Unidentified Transdermal Administration

CAS Director General3

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Articles et commentaires Articles and Commentaries Artículos y comentarios4

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Review of Recent Jurisprudence in Doping Matters: Substantial Assistance, Whereabouts Information, and Unidentified Transdermal Administration Markus Manninen1 ________________________________________________________________________________

I. Introduction

II. CAS 2021/A/8296: WADA v. FIFA & Vladimir Obukhov – Substantial Assistance

A. Introduction

B. Facts

C. Conditions for Finding Substantial Assistance

D. Substantial Assistance as an “Important Part” or a “Sufficient Basis” for Discovering or

Establishing Violations

E. Consequences of a Finding of Substantial Assistance

F. Conclusion

III. CAS 2021/A/8391: Andrejs Rastorgujevs v. International Biathlon Union (IBU) — Whereabouts

Information

A. Introduction

B. Facts

C. Requirements for a Sufficient Whereabouts Filing

IV. 2022/ADD/53: International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Vicky Annett Schlittig –

Unidentified Transdermal Administration

A. Introduction

B. Facts

C. Potential Sources of Contamination in Case Law

D. Exceptions: Unidentified Source of a Prohibited Substance

E. ADD Award in the Schlittig Case

F. Final Remark ________________________________________________________________________________

I. Introduction

Competitive sports demand not only physical prowess but also adherence to strict regulations. One significant component of these are antidoping regulations, which have been largely standardised worldwide, with the primary responsibility placed on the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”). WADA is consistently developing regulations related to doping control thereby striving to maintain fairness and integrity across all sports.

Despite the continuous development, it is impossible to make the regulations comprehensive and unequivocal in a way that an

Agency (“WADA”). WADA is consistently developing regulations related to doping control thereby striving to maintain fairness and integrity across all sports.

Despite the continuous development, it is impossible to make the regulations comprehensive and unequivocal in a way that an

1 Markus Manninen, Attorney-at-Law, CAS ADD Arbitrator. Partner at Hannes Snellman Attorneys Ltd, Helsinki, Finland, specialised in dispute resolution and sports law. answer to every case -specific situation is readily available irrespective of the sport. The complexity of the anti -doping regulations and the diversity of real -life cases often necessitate testing and interpretation of the relevant provisions. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) and its different divisions play a significant, if not a crucial role in maintaining the effectiveness and relevance of the legal framework on anti -doping. In this article, it is specifically the CAS jurisprudence that will b e analysed from different angles.

The first part of the article focuses on the concept of “substantial assistance”. It serves as a tool for disciplinary bodies to uncover additional5

doping violations thereby enhancing the effectiveness of doping control. It also provides a mechanism for violators to mitigate their sanctions, thus adding a layer of complexity to the disciplinary process. This paper examines the criteria that need to be met for an individual’s assistance to be deemed “substantial”, and it further investigates to what extent the substantial assistance may alleviate the sanction. This involves a critical analysis of various factors, including the severity of the original violation, the significance of the assistance provided, and the potential implications for the overall integrity of the sport.

The second part of this article focuses on athletes’ whereabouts information. The regulations regarding the whereabouts information are rather stringent for top -level athletes. The requirement to provide precise and timely information about their location for

overall integrity of the sport.

The second part of this article focuses on athletes’ whereabouts information. The regulations regarding the whereabouts information are rather stringent for top -level athletes. The requirement to provide precise and timely information about their location for testing purposes can be burdensome, and penalties may result from providing insufficient information. The article explores the boundary between insufficient and sufficient whereabouts information in the light of a recent CAS case.

The third and final section focuses on contamination cases and, in particular, on transdermal administration. It addresses situations where an athlete who has tested positive attempts to demonstrate that the prohibited substance has entered their body accidentally, for instance, through skin contact. Such cases are relatively rare but particularly interesting and challenging. For instance, where the origin of the prohibited substance is not known with certainty, the question of when the evidence is sufficie nt to establish the lack of intent is a significant one.

2 See WADC, comment to Article 10.7.1, p. 72. 3 The provision on substantial assistance was already introduced in the WADC that entered into force in 2004. The scope of substantial assistance and its utilisation as a basis for mitigating sanctions has, like other provisions, developed over the years.

II. CAS 2021/A/8296: WADA v. FIFA &

Vladimir Obukhov – Substantial Assistance

A. Introduction

“The cooperation of Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other Persons who acknowledge their mistakes and are willing to bring other anti -doping rule violations to light is important to clean sport”.2

In order to foster clean sport and to encourage athletes and other individuals to disclose information they may have about potential doping offences committed by other persons, Article 10.7.1 of the World Anti -Doping Code (“WADC”) allows a suspension of a part of the

In order to foster clean sport and to encourage athletes and other individuals to disclose information they may have about potential doping offences committed by other persons, Article 10.7.1 of the World Anti -Doping Code (“WADC”) allows a suspension of a part of the period of ineligibility wh ere there has been “substantial assistance” in discovering or establishing WADC violations.3 In other words, persons who have effectively assisted relevant disciplinary bodies4 in anti-doping investigations may be treated more leniently when their own doping case is being handled, with eventually a shorter period of ineligibility than otherwise imposed.5

Setting conditions for substantial assistance requires careful balancing. On one hand, it is important that the benefits to individuals who have committed violations are not applied too lightly. On the other hand, the threshold should not be so high that the incentives are considered blatantly unreachable.

The challenges related to this balancing are also reflected in Article 10.7.1 of the WADC, which, being more than three pages long, explains the conditions for substantial assistance and provides guidance on its application. As the provision is rather broa d and detailed, CAS has also repeatedly examined cases based on it.

When Article 10.7.1 of the WADC works as intended, it gives disciplinary bodies acting in universal doping control system a chance to 4 According to Article 10.7.1 of the WADC, these include anti-doping organisations (“ADO”) but also criminal authorities and professional disciplinary bodies. 5 The maximum suspension is three quarters of the original period, whereas the minimum is not stipulated in the WADC. The assessment is done on a case -by-case basis.6

uncover anti -doping rule violations (“ADRV”) and other offences that would otherwise have remained unexamined thereby improving the integrity of clean sport.

the WADC. The assessment is done on a case -by-case basis.6

uncover anti -doping rule violations (“ADRV”) and other offences that would otherwise have remained unexamined thereby improving the integrity of clean sport.

In the following, I will examine some of the key legal implications of “substantial assistance” in the light of CAS award CAS 2021/A/8296 WADA v. FIFA & Obukhov.6

B. Facts

In 2013, Mr Obukhov, a then 21 -year-old football player of Torpedo Moskow FC 7, underwent an out-of-competition test in Russia, after which the Russian national anti -doping organization reported a negative result in the Anti-Doping Administration & Management System (“ADAMS”). For a long period of time, the situation remained as suc h, and the player continued his professional career.

Then, eight years later, FIFA notified the player of a possible ADRV, after WADA’s forensic investigations had showed that the prohibited substance in the sample had been covered up. 8 As a result, the player admitted his ADRV and expressed his will to provide substantial assistance.9 Accordingly, a cooperation agreement was signed between the player and the FIFA Disciplinary Committee (“FIFA DC”).10

In its follow -up decision, FIFA DC found that the player had provided complete and credible assistance regarding the team doctor’s fraudulent medical routines and therefore reduced the period of ineligibility from two years to six months11 as proposed by the player. 12 WADA appealed the decision before CAS arguing that there had been no substantial assistance, that FIFA had no

6 The arbitral award is publicly available in the CAS database. See also CAS Bulletin 2022/02, pp. 131-135. 7 In the 2013 season, the team played at the second highest

decision before CAS arguing that there had been no substantial assistance, that FIFA had no

6 The arbitral award is publicly available in the CAS database. See also CAS Bulletin 2022/02, pp. 131-135. 7 In the 2013 season, the team played at the second highest tier in Russia (“The Russian First League”). 8 FIFA also notified simultaneously another former player of the Torpedo team for the same reasons. 9 According to the player, the club’s doctor had systematically given the players pills and injections claiming they were “vitamins”. See CAS 2021/A/8296 para. 12. 10 FIFA DC was the first instance investigating the case. competence over reductions, and that the reduction was in any case excessive. In the following, I will examine how CAS assessed the matter and how similar issues have been evaluated in general.

C. Conditions for Finding Substantial

Assistance

1. Timing

First, the disciplinary body dealing with the case must be aware of the specific temporal window in which substantial assistance can be applied. If it is not open, the further formal and substantive conditions set out in the WADC do not need to be assessed in more detail. Article 10.7.1.1 of the

WADC begins as follows:

“An Anti -Doping Organization with Results Management responsibility for an anti -doping rule violation may, prior to an appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration of the time to appeal, suspend a part of the Consequences (…)”

Accordingly, if the first -instance disciplinary decision has been appealed and a decision on the appeal has been issued, the time limit for a finding of substantial assistance has definitively expired. If, on the contrary, no appeal has been lodged, the de adline for the potential applicability of substantial assistance is the same as the deadline for the appeal. The specific time limits for filing appeals for parties other than

finding of substantial assistance has definitively expired. If, on the contrary, no appeal has been lodged, the de adline for the potential applicability of substantial assistance is the same as the deadline for the appeal. The specific time limits for filing appeals for parties other than WADA are set out in the rules of each competent ADO. WADA’s deadline is typicall y twenty-one days after the last day on which the other party could have appealed.13

2. Full Disclosure of Information and Full

Cooperation Throughout the Proceedings

11 I.e. 75%, being the maximum suspension. 12 Pursuant to Section 1.3 of the cooperation agreement: “(…) FIFA agrees to reduce the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility of two (2) years regarding the anti -doping rule violation committed by the Player, on the basis of substantial assistance, to six (6) months” (CAS 2021/A/8296, para 23). 13 See Articles 13.2.3.4 and 13.2.3.5 of the WADC. Pursuant to the latter, the alternative deadline for WADA to file an appeal is twenty-one days after WADA’s receipt of the complete file relating to the decision.7

The formal and material requirements for substantial assistance are based on Article 10.7.1. of the WADC and the WADC Appendix 1 (Definitions). Firstly, the definition of substantial assistance 14 imposes two cumulative conditions on the athlete, relating to the extent of the information to be provided and how the athlete should act when providing substantial assistance. According to the definition, the athlete shall:

1. fully disclose in a signed written statement or recorded interview all information he/she possesses in relation to ADRVs, and

2. fully cooperate with the investigation and adjudication of any case related to that information.

The definition implies that the information to be submitted should encompass all relevant

recorded interview all information he/she possesses in relation to ADRVs, and

2. fully cooperate with the investigation and adjudication of any case related to that information.

The definition implies that the information to be submitted should encompass all relevant information related to potential doping offences in a written form. Accordingly, it is not adequate, for example, to provide a selected part of the information in one’s possession.15

The latter requirement stipulated in the definition in turn underlines the fact that the individual should systematically provide the authorities with support, for example, by presenting a testimony at a hearing. 16 In other words, there is no room for a change of mind when one decides to give substantial assistance. Otherwise, the original consequences might take place.17

14 See WADC Appendix 1, Definitions. 15 In Obukhov’s case, it was agreed that “ FIFA retains the right to reinstate the otherwise applicable full period of ineligibility unless it is satisfied that the Player has provided total and frank disclosure of all of the facts surrounding the anti-doping rule violation committed by the individuals referred to in clause 1.2 above.” (CAS 2021/A/8296, para. 23). 16 In Obukhov’s case, it was agreed that “ The Player must fully cooperate with the investigation and adjudication of any case or matter relating to the information he provides, including, but not limited to, presenting testimony at a hearing if requested to do so by FIFA or a hearing panel. The Player hereby explicitly acknowledges that any refusal to fully cooperate, in particular to provide testimony will result in FIFA reinstating