AAA No. 77190 00225 12 USADA vs Johan Bruyneel
AAA No. 77190 00226 12 USADA vs Pedro Celaya
AAA No. 77190 00227 12 USADA vs José Martí Martí
Related cases:
CAS 2013_A_3285 Johan Bruyneel vs USADA
May 13, 2014
Swiss Federal Court 4A_222_2015 Johan Bruyneel vs USADA & WADA
January 28, 2016
CAS 2014_A_3598 Johan Bruyneel & Jose Martí vs USADA | WADA vs Johan Bruyneel, Pedro Celaya Lezama, Jose Martí Martí & USADA - Partial Award
October 24, 2018
- Mr. Bruyneel served as a team director for the U.S. Postal Service team between 1999 and 2004 and the Discovery Channel team between 2005 and 2007.
- Dr. Celaya served a team physician for the U.S. Postal Service team in 1997, 1998, and 2004 and the Discovery Channel team between 2005 and 2007.
- Mr. José Martí served as a team trainer for the U.S. Postal Service team between 1999 and 2004 and the Discovery Channel team between 2005 and 2007.
On June 2012 USADA informed Respondents, Mr. Lance Armstrong and others that a formal action was opened based on evidence that each party had engaged in anti-doping violations under the UCI Rules from 1998 to 2012, the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) from inception to 2012 and the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing from inception to 2012.
All three Respondents are charged of possession, trafficking, administration and to have assisted, encouraged, and facilitated the use of prohibited doping agents to the professional cyclists on these U.S.-based teams. The banned doping agents and methods alleged to have been administered in this case: erythropoietin, hGH, blood transfusions, cortisone, testosterone and/or saline, plasma or glycerol infusions.
After given notice by USADA, the Respondents filed several objections and evidence in their defence and were heard for the Panel of the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport (NACAS).
The Panel was asked by USADA here to consider applying equitable doctrines to extend the applicable statute of limitations period beyond the express period set forth in Article 17 of the WADC.
The Panel allowed USADA to present all of its evidence, including acts undertaken before the limitations period. The Panel did not consider that evidence in making this Award, even for corroborating the evidence of acts within the limitations period.
Against the Respondents, USADA submitted in this case several affidavits and sworn testimonies of cyclists and riders for the U.S Postal Service and Discovery Channel teams:
- Michael Barry
- Tom Danielson
- Tyler Hamilton
- George Hincapie
- Floyd Landis
- Levi Leipheimer
- Christian Vande Velde
- David Zabriskie
The Panel of the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport (NACAS) concludes that USADA had presented sufficient evidence of acts in violation of the UCI ADR taken within the limitations period to support the charges against each Respondent. On the basis of the facts, legal analysis, and conclusions of fact, this Panel renders the following decision:
(A) USADA has sustained its burden of proof as to all Respondents. As a result, Respondents have each committed their first doping violations under Article 2.1 of the 2009 version of the WADA Code, with the presence of aggravating circumstances. Therefore, the Panel imposes a period of ineligibility for each Respondent as follows:
(1) Mr. Johann Bruyneel: 10 years, starting from June 12, 2012 and continuing through and including June 11, 2022;
(2) Dr. Pedro Celaya: 8 years, starting from June 12, 2012 and continuing through and including June 11, 2020; and
(3) Mr. José Martí Martí: 8 years, starting from June 12, 2012 and continuing through and including June 11, 2020.
(B) The parties shall bear their own attorney’s fees and costs associated with this arbitration;
(C) The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association, and the compensation and expenses of the arbitrators and the Panel, shall be borne entirely by USADA and the United States Olympic Committee;
(D) This Award shall be in full and final resolution of all claims and counterclaims submitted to this Arbitration. The Panel has considered all of the arguments made by the parties, whether or not they are specifically referenced in this Award. All claims not expressly granted herein are hereby denied; and
(E) This Award may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which shall constitute together one and the same instrument.
