CAS 2014/A/3598 Johan Bruyneel v. United States Anti-Doping Agency
CAS 2014/A/3599 José Martí Martí v. United States Anti-Doping Agency
CAS 2014/A/3618 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Johan Bruyneel, Pedro Celaya Lezama, José Martí Martí & United States Anti-Doping Agency
Related cases:
- AAA No. 77 190 00225 12 USADA vs Johan Bruyneel, Pedro Celaya Lezama & José Martí Martí
April 21, 2014
- 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
- 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 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.
In June 2012 USADA informed Mr Bruyneel, Dr. Celaya, Mr. Martí and others that a formal action was opened based on evidence that each party had engaged in multiple anti-doping violations.
Mr. Bruyneel, Dr. Celaya, and Mr. Martí were charged of trafficking, possession, 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.
Against these charges Mr. Bruyneel launced a number of appeals with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and with the Swiss Federal Court. All these appeals were dismissed.
The Panel of the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport (NACAS) concluded that USADA has sustained its burden of proof as to all Respondents. As a result, the 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 decided on 21 April 2014 to impose a period of ineligibility for each Respondent as follows:
(1) Mr. Johan 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.
Hereafter in May 2014 Mr. Bruyneel, Mr. Martí and in June 2014 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the AAA decision of 21 April 2014 with CAS. Dr. Celaya did not appeal the AAA decision. Mr. Bruyneel and Mr. Martí requested the Panel for a reduced sanction while WADA sought a lifetime period of ineligibility against Mr. Bruyneel, Mr. Martí and Dr. Celaya.
In this case the Panel considers and determine:
(A) whether USADA had result management jurisdiction and the AAA the disciplinary authority over Mr. Bruyneel, Mr. Martí and Dr. Celaya;
(B) the scope of USADA's mandate;
(C) whether USADA/WADA have breached any confidentiality obligation; and
(D) whether USADA/WADA have sufficiently particularized the charges against Mr. Bruyneel, Mr. Martí and Dr. Celaya.
(A) Considering the parties arguments the Panel finds that the delegation of powers by the UCI to USADA as the NADO which discovered the violation cannot be considered atypical, unusual or otherwise problematic within the sport disciplinary anti-doping system. Relying on the principle of confidence applied by the Swiss Federal Tribunal in the context of arbitration agreements by global reference, the Panel concludes that USADA had result management jurisdiction, and the AAA had disciplinary authority over Mr. Bruyneel and Mr. Martí. The UCI validly delegated those powers to USADA and the AAA pursuant to Swiss law. The case law of the Swiss Federal Tribunal point unequivocally in that direction.
(B) The Panel holds that USADA is a fully independent entity and its powers cannot be limited by its contractual responsibilities to the USOC or Congress' statutory grant. Accordingly, the Panel rejects Mr. Bruyneel's argument that USADA acted ultra vires of its own mandate when it exercised jurisdiction over him.
(C) Mr. Bruyneel asserted that USADA breached its confidentiality obligations by publishing extensive statements concerning Mr. Bruyneel 's alleged anti-doping violations in its reasoned decision against Lance Armstrong. In this matter the Panel considers that USADA, while fulfilling its obligation to publish a reasoned decision against Mr. Armstrong, could have also respected its confidentiality obligation vis-a-vis Mr. Bruyneel by redacting his name, as it did for other individuals. Accordingly, the Panel finds that USADA violated its confidentiality obligations vis-à-vis Mr. Bruyneel. Here the Panel denied Mr. Bruyneel’s request for relief.
(D) The Panel, having reviewed USADA's Notice Letter of 12 June 2012, its reasoned decision, its submissions before the AAA and before the present Panel, sees no reason to depart from the AAA's finding on this issue. In its view, having regard to the totality of the material before it and the arguments and submissions of the Parties, the charges against Mr. Bruyneel and Mr. Martí have been more than adequately particularised, especially in circumstances of allegations of widespread doping such as in the present case. Accordingly the Panel rejects the arguments of Mr. Bruyneel and Mr. Martí in this matter.
The Panel deems that the totality of the evidence paints a very clear picture for the Panel: from 1997 to 2007, Mr. Bruyneel, Mr. Martí and Dr. Celaya participated in an elaborate and highly successful doping scheme with Mr. Bruyneel at the apex of a multitude of doping violations and Mr. Martí and Dr. Celaya (and Dr. del Moral) as the indispensable participants in this widespread and systematic doping program.
The Panel concludes that all charges against Mr. Bruyneel, Mr. Martí and Dr. Celaya within the limitation period have been established to its comfortable satisfaction. Even if evidence of conduct by Mr. Bruyneel, Mr. Martí and Dr. Celaya occurring before the limitation period was only considered by the Panel as evidence of a pattern of acts, it remains comfortably satisfied that USADA has established each and every one of the doping offences of which Mr. Bruyneel, Mr. Martí and Dr. Celaya stand accused. In this case there are no grounds for the application of the lex mitior doctrine regarding the imposed sanctions.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 October 2018 that:
1.) The appeal of Mr. Bruyneel against the decision rendered by the AAA on 21 April 2014 is denied.
2.) The appeal of Mr. Martí against the decision rendered by the AAA on 21 April 2014 is denied.
3.) The appeal of WADA against the decision rendered by the AAA on 21 April 2014 is partially upheld.
4.) The decision rendered by the AAA on 21 April 2014 is modified to the extent that:
- (a) Mr. Bruyneel's period of ineligibility shall be for a lifetime;
- (b) Dr. Celaya' s period of ineligibility shall be for a lifetime;
- (c) Mr. Martí's period of ineligibility shall be for a period of fifteen (15) years commencing on the date of this Partial Award but giving him credit for the period of ineligibility already served from 12 June 2012.
5.) Costs reserved.
6.) All other claims are dismissed.
