CAS 2013/A/3285 Johan Bruyneel v. United States Anti Doping Agency (USADA)
Related cases:
- AAA No. 77 190 00225 12 USADA vs Johan Bruyneel, Pedro Celaya Lezama & José Martí Martí
April 21, 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
Cycling
Doping
Notion of appealable decision
CAS jurisdiction
1. Before a party has a right of appeal there must be an operative decision or award. Whether a procedural order is a decision or an “award” from which an appeal may be brought within the meaning of the USADA Protocol and determined in accordance with the CAS Code is a question which must be decided as a matter of substance and not form. The fact that the procedural order was issued as a “procedural order” and not an “award” is not decisive.
2. If a procedural order is not final and binding in any relevant substantive way and does not dispose of any part of the disputes between the parties, but only constitutes a procedural ruling to continue to hear the case and reserving all questions of substance to be dealt with by the panel in its final award, it is not an “award”, a “final award” or a “partial, interim or non-final award” within the USADA Protocol or the Appeal Rules of the CAS Code. CAS has therefore no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against such procedural order.
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.
In June 2012, USADA informed Johan Bruyneel 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.
Mr. Bruyneel and two other persons are charged of possession, trafficking, administration and to have assisted, encouraged, and facilitated the use of prohibited doping agents to the professional cyclists on the two 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.
In June 2013 in the course of the arbitration proceedings the AAA Panel issued a Procedural Order (PO) about the jurisdiction; the confidentiality and right to disclose; the statute of limitations ; and the interlocutory appeal.
Hereafter in August 2013 Mr. Bruyneel appealed against the PO with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Panel rules that the PO is no more than a provisional view or tentative finding by the AAA Panel, it is not an “award”, a “final award” or a “partial, interim or non-final award” within the USADA Protocol or the Appeal Rules of the CAS Code. CAS has therefore no jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 May 2014:
1.) The Court of Arbitration for Sport has no jurisdiction to deal with the appeal filed on 2 August 2013 by Mr Johan Bruyneel against USADA with respect to Procedural Order No. 2 rendered by the AAA on 12 June 2013.
(…)
4.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
