The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her pre-competition sample tested positive for the prohibited substance EPO.
The IOC notified the NOC of Spain which reported that the Athlete had left the Olympic Village in Beijing and returned to Spain. Hereafter the Athlete filed a statement in her defence and alleged irregularities with the doping control, the sample collection, the notification and invitation for the hearing.
The Committee rejects the Athlete’s arguments and concludes that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. On 11 August 2008 the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides that the Athlete:
1.) is excluded from the Games of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games;
2.) shall have her Olympic identity and accreditation card immediately cancelled and withdrawn.
3.) The Athlete’s file shall be transmitted to the UCI, which is requested to consider any further action within its own competence.
4.) The NOC of Spain and BOCOG shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
5.) This decision shall enter into force immediately.

CAS 2007/A/1416 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) & International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) & Lindsey Scherf

• Athletics
• Doping (failure to obtain an ATUE)
• No Significant Fault or Negligence in case of refusal to submit a doping control

There is no Significant Fault or Negligence in case errors made by the IAAF, and by USADA place the athlete in somewhat of a quandary, and where athlete’s subsequent error in judgment is a direct result of the errors made by agencies that should have provided better service to the athlete. Albeit the refusal to provide a sample, this case is a rare case in which exceptional circumstances exist and the athlete bears No Significant Fault or Negligence.

On 1 July 2007 the American Athlete Lindsey Scherf participated in the Australian Gold Coast Marathon and afterwards she refused to provide a sample. The Athlete knew the drug test would be positive for the medication Flovent, containing the substance Fluticasone she had used for her asthma without a valid TUE.

Previously in April 2007 the Athlete had applied for a TUE with the IAAF for the use of her medication on the advice of USADA. However in June 2007 the Athlete had still not received word from the IAAF about het TUE application.

The Athlete also could not stop timely using her Flovent medication because in the 3 weeks before the Marathon she had contracted a serious throat and lung infection.

Without a valid TUE and on advice of the USADA TUE Coordinator she checked with with officials of the Gold Coast Marathon to determine if there would be drug testing. She was advised that there had been no drug testing in the 3 previous years and it was considered unlikely that there would be a last minute drug test at this completion.

In August 2007 USADA had results management and it conducted an investigation into the facts in this case. It turned out that USADA was unaware that the Gold Coast Marathon was not an international event under the IAAF Rules and therefore the Athlete’s USADA TUE would have been valid for the Gold Coast Marathon on 1 July 2007.

At the conclusion of their investigation USADA offered the Athlete a 2 year period of ineligibility and a 1 year reduction in the period of ineligibility for exceptional circumstances. The Athlete accepted this sanction on 31 October 2007.

Hereafter in November 2007 WADA and IAAF appealed the USADA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA and IAAF requested the Panel to impose a more severe sanction on the Athlete because the Athlete had admitted that she hoped through her refusal for a less severe sanction than a sanction for testing positive.

WADA and IAAF contended that there are no grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence since the circumstances in this case were truly not exceptional. Further they argued that alleged irregularities in the TUE procedure or uncertainty about the existence of a TUE can never justify a refusal to submit to sample collection.

USADA asserted that the Athlete had acted with some fault and that the errors of the IAAF and USADA did not excuse the Athlete’s fault in refusing to submit to doping control. However they did help to create a chain of events which on a balance of probabilities appear to have significantly mitigated the Athlete’s fault in refusing doping control.

The Athlete admitted the violation and argued that USADA had conducted an extremely thorough and detailed investigation prior to its finding that she was not significantly at fault and was not significantly negligent.

The Panel concludes that errors made by the IAAF, and by USADA placed the Athlete in somewhat of a quandary. Her subsequent error in judgment was as a direct result of the errors made by agencies that should have provided better service to the athlete.

The Panel finds that exceptional circumstances did exist in this case, and agrees that the Athlete bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, because her fault or negligence, when viewed in light of all the circumstances, was not significant in relation to her anti-doping rule violation.

The Panel would, however, wish to make it clear that this is a rare case in which an athlete who has failed or refused to provide a sample will be able to satisfy a CAS Panel that the sanction is to be reduced on the ground of No Significant Fault or Negligence. Such cases will not often occur.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 11 August 2007:

1.) The Appeal filed by WADA and the IAAF against a decision of the United States Anti-Doping Agency dated October 31, 2007, is dismissed.

(…)

4.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

TAS 2007/A/1444 UCI c/Iban Mayo & RFEC
TAS 2008/A/1465 UCI c/Iban Mayo & RFEC

TAS 2007/A/1444 & TAS 2008/A/1465 UCI c/Iban Mayo & RFEC

CAS 2007/A/1444 UCI vs Iban Mayo & RFEC
CAS 2007/A/1465 UCI vs Iban Mayo & RFEC

On 19 October 2007 and again on 27 December 2007 the Royal Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC) decided to cease the proceedings againt the cyclist Iban Mayo Diez and to acquit him because of the inconclusive test results regarding the presence of recombinant Erythropoietin (rhEPO) in his A and B samples.

Here the Paris Lab detected the presence of EPO in the Athlete’s A sample while during the analysis of the A sample the volume of urine was insufficient to establish the presence of EPO due to several abnormalities had been detected. In a second opinion the Lausanne Lab confirmed the presence of rhEPO in the Athlete’s A sample.

At the request of the Athlete his B1 sample was tested and the Ghent Lab reported - with the second opinion of the Sydney Lab - that the test results for rhEPO were inconclusive.
After deliberations between the Athlete and the UCI his B2 sample was tested in the Paris Lab and this time the presence of rhEPO was established and confirmed.

Hereafter in December 2007 and in January 2008 the UCI appealed the two RFEC decisions with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The UCI requested the Panel to set aside the two Appealed RFEC Decisions and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The Athelete requested the Panel to uphold the RFEC decisions and to set aside the test results. He alleged that departures of the ISL had constituted doubts about the integrity, validity and identity of the analysed samples. The UCI had also violated his fundamental rights in this case.

The Panel establishes that the samples in question arrived sealed in the Paris Lab and the absence of the additional seal as precaution for the transport packing is no departure of the ISL. In view of the chain of custody documentation and testimonies the Panel has no doubt about the identity of the analysed samples.

The Panel determines that there was indeed a departure of the ISL when the Paris Lab switched to another method for establishing the presence of the prohibited substance instead of using a new aliguote from the A sample.

Considering the circumstances and arguments in this case the Panel accepts the test result of the Athlete’s B2 sample which confirmed the presence of rhEPO in his A sample. The Panel deems that the UCI had established the presence of rhEPO in the Athlete’s samples. Consequently the two appealed RFEC decisions in favour of the Athlete must be set aside.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 11 August 2008:

1.) The appeals of the UCI are admissible;

2.) The decisions rendered on 19 October 2007 and 27 December 2007 by the National Committee of the RFEC are set aside;

3.) The Athlete is sanctioned with a suspension of two years from July 31, 2007;

4.) The Athlete is disqualified from the "Tour de France 2007";

5.) The cyclist pays to the UCI, the amount of CHF 1,000 for costs;

6.) The UCI has to pay the admission costs, of CHF 500 to CAS;

7.) Orders the RFEC to pay a contribution for legal fees of the UCI of CHF 2,000;

8.) Each party has to bear its own lawyer costs;

9.) All other or further claims are dismissed.

In the opinion of the IOC Disciplinary Commission the Athlete was involved in unacceptable behaviour on the occasion of the 2004 Athens Olympic Games, even if she did not finally participate therein, she caused a very serious prejudice to the Olympic Movement by being the cause of a major scandal which was widely covered and reported in the world media. She put the Olympic Movement into disrepute.

Some of the acts which the Athlete committed at the time in 2004 are the following, apart from escaping doping controls:
- repeatedly pretending she had a traffic accident;
- giving false testimony to the authorities under oath in relation to such non-existent traffic accident;
- causing 3 medical doctors to issue false medical certificates;
- causing six medical doctors to hospitalise her for five days in order to avoid IOC controls;
- postponing her appearance in front of the IOC Disciplinary Commission, thus seeking to avoid a sanction of disqualification from the 2004 Athens Olympic Games and possible exclusion from future Olympic Games.
Hereafter the Athlete declared on 18 August 2004 her withdrawal from the Athens Olympic Games and surrendered her Olympic identity and accreditation cards.

In August 2004, the IOC did not take a decision as to the Athlete’s participation in any future Olympic Games. She did not participate in the 2004 Games. This is why the IOC Executive Board resolved to leave the matter open.
Subsequently, following her procedure for violation of anti-doping rules conducted by the IAAF and which reached the CAS, the Athlete signed on 28 June 2006 a settlement agreement in which, in particular, she finally acknowledged what she had persistently denied. She accepted that she had breached the IAAF rules in Athens. She agreed to a period of ineligibility of two years which was to end on 22 December 2006.

In 2008 the Athlete applied for participation at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. She was entered on 23 July 2008 by the Hellenic Olympic Committee as an Athlete.
The IOC Disciplinary Commission concludes that the fact remains that the previous charges against the Athlete constitute more than serious indications of a pattern of gross misconduct incompatible with the Olympic Charter and the spirit of Olympism.
The Disciplinary Commission considers that the Athlete’s attitude is unacceptable. In 2004, she never acknowledged or admitted any breach of any anti-doping rules. On the contrary, she tried by all means to avoid any testing as well as escaping her responsibilities, accepting even to position herself as a victim in a highly doubtful motorcycle accident, thus escaping once more an occasion of being tested. After persistently denying any wrongdoing, she chose the most suitable time (June 2006), six months before the end of her suspension, to enter into a settlement with the IAAF.

On 10 August 2008 the IOC Executive Board, as recommended by the IOC Disciplinary Commission, decides that:
1.) the athlete Ms Ekaterini Thanou is declared ineligible to participate in the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games in the sport of athletics and in any other capacity;
2.) the Athlete’s entry in the 2008 Olympic Games is refused;
3.) her accreditation is cancelled and withdrawn;
4.) the Hellenic Olympic Committee and BOCOG ensure full implementation of the IOC Executive Board decision.

CAS OG 08/05 The Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee (ANOC) & Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF) vs Federation Internationale de Hockey (FIH)

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Beijing) 08/005 Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF) & Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee (ANOC) v. Fédération Internationale de Hockey (FIH)

Related cases:

• CAS OG_2008_01 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF & the Players vs FIH & RFEH
  August 2, 2008
• CAS OG_2008_04 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF vs FIH
  August 5, 2008
• Swiss Federal Court 4A_424_2008 AFHF vs FIH
  January 22, 2009

• Field Hockey
• Olympic Games
• Standing to bring an application before the CAS Ad hoc Division

The Applicants have no standing to file an application before the CAS Ad hoc Division because no adverse finding has been made against them by the Judicial Commission of FIH and thus there was no breach of the rules of procedural fairness in not giving the Applicants an opportunity to be heard.

From 12 to 20 April 2008, one of the three Women's World Hockey Qualifier competitions was held in Baku, Azerbaijan. The winner of the Event would qualify for the Olympic Games. The final of the Event was a match on Sunday, 20 April 2008, between the team representing the Real Federación Española de Hockey (RFEH) and the team representing the Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF). The Spanish team won the final 3-2.

On 21 May 2008, the FIH communicated that the A and B samples of two players, who competed for the Spanish team, taken during anti-doping tests carried out at the Event showed adverse analytical findings (AAF). In the same communication, the FIH stated that the players concerned had requested a hearing by the FIH Judicial Commission.

The hearing impacted not only the players but could also have affected the entire Spanish team by virtue of article 11.1 of the FIH Anti-Doping Policy, which reads: “if more than one team member in a Team Sport is found to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule violation during the Event, the team may be subject to Disqualification or other disciplinary action."

The FIH requested that the Judicial Commission find that the two players had committed an anti-doping rule violation and as a result disqualify the Spanish team from the Event.
The Judicial Commission found that one of the players committed an anti-doping rule violation. However, there was no fault or negligence on her part so no sanction was imposed; the second player was not found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation ("the Decision").

On 31 July 2008, AFHF, together with the players of the Azerbaijan Women's Field Hockey team and the ANOC, filed an application with the ad hoc Division of the CAS.

By decision of 2 August 2008, the ad hoc Division of the CAS dismissed the application filed by the ANOC, the AFHF and the Players on 31 July 2008 (the "First Award"). In this First Award, the CAS Panel found that ANOC, AFHF and the Players did not have standing to bring an appeal of the Decision.

Faced with the absence of standing, on 5 August 2008, the Applicants brought a further application before the CAS ad hoc Division seeking an order that FIH itself bring an appeal to CAS against the Decision.

By decision of 5 August 2008, the CAS ad hoc Division dismissed the application filed on 5 August 2008, including the requests for preliminary relief (the “Second Award”).

This amounts to a third appeal to the CAS ad hoc Division by the Applicants seeking substantially the same final relief as sought in the application which led to the First Award.

According to the Applicants’ submissions, this application arises by reason of their consideration, for the first time, of a copy of the Decision which was made available to them as a result of a direction given by the CAS Panel which delivered the First Award.

The Applicants submit that the Decision “shows the Applicants were openly blamed for committing sabotage of the Spanish team” and that in the Decision, “the Judicial Commission endorsed the allegations put forward by the Respondents.”

The Applicants contend that the alleged findings of the Judicial Commission against them were made in circumstances where they had a right to be heard and were not heard. They submit that, in accordance with article 22.1 of the FIH Statutes and Byelaws, article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and general principles, since they have been denied procedural fairness by the Judicial Commission, the Decision should be annulled.

The CAS Panel finds that the Applicants seem to be seeking to appeal against the dismissed First Award. The First Award was erroneous. Indeed, with great respect, the Panel considered that it was clearly correct. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that the Applicants have no standing to bring this application. In addition it is not necessary to consider the merits of the application or whether the Decision was, in fact, a correct one.

On the basis of the foregoing facts and legal aspects, the ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport renders on 8 August 2008 the following decision:

The application filed by the Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation and the Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee on 7 August 2008 is hereby dismissed.

The science of doping : commentary / Donald A. Berry. – (Nature (2008) 454 (7 August) : p. 692-693) doi:10.1038/454692a

Recently, the international Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld doping charges against cyclist Floyd Landis, stripping him of his title as winner of the 2006 Tour de France and suspending him from competition for two years. The court agreed with the majority opinion of a divided three-member American Arbitration Association (AAA) panel and essentially placed a stamp of approval on a laboratory test indicating that Landis had taken synthetic testosterone. Although Landis asserts his innocence, his options for recourse have all but dried up.
In my opinion, close scrutiny of quantitative evidence used in Landis’s case show it to be non-informative. This says nothing about Landis’s guilt or innocence. It rather reveals that the evidence and inferential procedures used to judge guilt in such cases don’t address the question correctly. The situation in drugtesting labs worldwide must be remedied. Cheaters evade detection, innocents are falsely accused and sport is ultimately suffering.

Related article:
Doping: a paradigm shift has taken place in testing
Doping: probability that testing doesn’t tell us anything new
Doping: ignorance of basic statistics is all too common
/ Pierre-Edouard Sottas, Christophe Saudan, Marial Saugy; Geoffrey Baird; Matthew Fero. – (Nature (2008) 455 (11 September) : p. 166)

CAS OG 08/04 The Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee (ANOC) & Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF) vs The Federation Internationale de Hockey (FIH)

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Beijing) 08/004 Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee (ANOC) & Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF) v. Fédération Internationale de Hockey (FIH)

Related cases:

• CAS OG_2008_01 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF & the Players vs FIH & RFEH
  August 2, 2008
• CAS OG_2008_05 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF & the Players vs FIH
  August 8, 2008
• Swiss Federal Court 4A_424_2008 AFHF vs FIH
  January 22, 2009
  
  

• Field Hockey
• Olympic Games

Discretionary power of IFs to adopt the reasoning of their judicial commission and not to appeal before the CAS in a doping matter. An International Federation does not have the obligation to appeal every time its own internal body decides after a review of the facts not to issue a sanction in a doping matter. The Federation must have the discretion to adopt the reasoning of its Judicial Commission and decide not to appeal.

The ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 August 2008:

The application filed on 5 August 2008 by the Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee and the Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation and their requests for preliminary relief are hereby dismissed.

In April 2008 the International Rugby Board (IRB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Chilean junior rugby player Francisco Metuaze after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance clenbuterol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the IRB Judicial Committee.

The Athlete did not challenge the test result, admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance.
He stated that he had used a product marked “clenbuterol” provided by a friend to reduce the percentage of fat in his body without realizing that clenbuterol was a prohibited substance.
At the previous Doping Control the Athlete mentioned the clenbuterol on the Doping Control Form but he didn’t test positive. He forgot to mention the clenbuterol on the Doping Control Form when he provided the samples which tested positive.

The Committee concludes that Athlete committed the anti-doping violation and finds that he seems to accept his responsibilities and that he also clearly ignored the anti-doping education he had received.

Without grounds for a reduced sanction the IRB Judicial Committee decides on 4 August 2008 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 25 April 2008.

In April 2008 the International Rugby Board (IRB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Chilean junior rugby player Francisco Metuaze after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance clenbuterol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the IRB Judicial Committee.

The Athlete did not challenge the test result, admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance. He stated that he had used a product marked “clenbuterol” provided by a friend to reduce the percentage of fat in his body without realizing that clenbuterol was a prohibited substance.
At the previous Doping Control the Athlete mentioned the clenbuterol on the Doping Control Form but he didn’t test positive. He forgot to mention the clenbuterol on the Doping Control Form when he provided the samples which tested positive.

The Committee concludes that Athlete committed the anti-doping violation and finds that the he seems to accept his responsibilities and that he also clearly ignored the anti-doping education he had received.

Without grounds for a reduced sanction the IRB Judicial Committee decides on 4 August 2008 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 25 April 2008.

CAS 2007/A/1348 IAAF v/ Bulgarian Athletics Federation & Vania Stambolova & Venelina Veneva

• Athletics (sprint; high jump)
• Doping (testosterone)
• Scientific reliability and reliance of the IRMS testing
• Standard of proof
• Right of the IAAF to request an IRMS analysis in the absence of an elevated T/E ratio and/or an abnormal steroid profile
• Limit of IAAF’s discretion

1. An IRMS analysis is an independent and sufficient basis upon which to determine that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred with respect to the exogenous administration of testosterone.

2. In order to succeed in rebutting the presumption set out in the IAAF Rules, the Respondents have to prove the veracity of their arguments by a balance of probability. Proof by balance of probability means that the CAS panel needs more than unfounded scientific hypotheses in order to accept the rebuttal of presumption and to invalidate results provided by a WADA-accredited laboratory which clearly show the presence of a prohibited substance.

3. Effective anti-doping policies require target testing conducted by the Anti-Doping Organisations. Target testing does not only entail selection of a specific athlete, who will undergo a doping control at a specific time and place; it may also include the choice of the type of sample (urine or blood) to be collected or even the type of the analysis to be applied in order to detect a prohibited substance. There is no rule which would prohibit IAAF from requesting an IRMS analysis on a sample that is owned by IAAF itself.

4. Like any other right, IAAF’s discretion as regards target testing is not to be abused and target testing should be used for anti-doping reasons only. However, a missed test and/or a missed test evaluation procedure is/are an objective indication that the concerned athlete might have been using prohibited substances which justifies the decision to request IRMS analysis of the athlete’s samples. Furthermore, even without such justification, the balancing of interests between the international federation’s role in representing all competing athletes equally and fairly may require the IAAF to order that additional laboratory analytical work be carried out in order to ensure the protection of the integrity of the sport and instil confidence in athletes who are competing fairly that their representative organisation has acted in the best interests of the sport.

In March 2007 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Bulgarian Athlete’s Vania Stambolova and Veneline Veneva after their A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.

In spite of the analysis reports of the WADA-accredited laboratory in Lausanne and the opinions of Dr. Saugy and Professor Ayotte, the Board of Administration of the Bulgarian Athletic Federation (BFLA) concluded and decided on 18 July 2007 that the test results of the athletes were inconclusive and insufficient for proving the use of prohibited substances as ground for sanctioning the athletes.

Hereafter in August 2007 the IAAF appealed the BFLA decision of 18 July 2007 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The IAAF requested the Panel to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the two athletes for committing an anti-doping rule violation.

The IAAF argued that the athlete’s samples clearly demonstrated the presence of exogenous testosterone including that there is clear and sufficient evidence of the IRMS analysis. The athletes explanation that the ingestion of Tribulus Terrestris would give rise to a positive IRMS result or an adverse analytical finding must be dismissed.

The BFLA and the Athletes contended that the IRMS analytical results do not exclude completely endogenous origin and may be explained with the effect of the medicines, food supplements and the use of Bulgarian sunflower oil.

Taking into account the level of independence, qualification and experience of each expert, the Panel has reached their conclusions in this case concerning the scientific issues raised by the parties.
The Panel is satisfied that the lAAF has completely satisfied its burden of proof with respect to a doping offence committed by Ms Stambolova and Ms Veneva under the lAAF Rules. On the other hand, the Athletes have failed to demonstrate any deviations from the International Standard of Laboratories or that the results could be explained by reasons other than administration of exogenous testosterone.

Proof by balance of probability means that the Panel needs more than unfounded scientific hypotheses in order to accept the rebuttal of presumption and to invalidate results provided by a WADA-accredited laboratory which clearly show the presence of a prohibited substance. As a result, the analysis findings were not attributable to Tribulus Terrestris and/or contraceptive tablets and/or sunflower oil and the Lausanne Laboratory was not obliged by any applicable rule to obtain a full steroid profile before reaching a conclusion on the adverse analytical finding.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 February 2008 that :

1.) The appeal filed on 3 August 2007 by the International Association of Athletics Federation against the decision issued on 18 July 2007 by the Board of Administration of the Bulgarian Athletics Federation is upheld.

2.) The decision issued on 18 July 2007 by the Board of Administration of the Bulgarian Athletics Federation is set aside and nullified.

3.) A suspension of two years is imposed on Ms Vania Stambolova and Ms Venelina Veneva commencing on the date of this decision, less the period of provisional suspension already served.

4.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

5.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the court office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) paid by the International Association of Athletics Federation, which is retained by the CAS.

6.) The Bulgarian Athletics Federation is ordered to pay to the International Association of Athletics Federation a contribution towards all its costs incurred in connection with the present arbitration procedure in an amount of CHF 5,000 (five thousand Swiss Francs).