CAS 2005_C_976 FIFA & WADA

21 Apr 2006

Advisory opinion CAS 2005/C/976 & 986 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) & World Antidoping Agency (WADA)
CAS 2005_O_976
CAS 2005_O_986

Football
Doping
Duty of FIFA to amend its Anti-Doping Rules in accordance with the WADC
Differences between the WADC and the FIFA Anti-Doping Rules
Limits on the power of an association to impose sanctions

1. As an association governed by Swiss law, FIFA is free, within the limits of mandatory Swiss law, to adopt such anti-doping rules it deems appropriate, whether or not such own rules comply with the WADC. However, FIFA is a recognized International Federation under Rule 26 of the Olympic Charter. According to Rule 26 para. 2 of the Olympic Charter, FIFA is obliged to implement the WADC. Not implementing the WADC does not render the WADC applicable by substitution, but may lead to sanctions as provided in Rule 23 of the Olympic Charter.

2. The most significant deviation of the FIFA Anti-Doping Rules from the WADC are:
- (1) the minimum duration of the ineligibility period for a first offense; - (2) the degree of fault which is relevant for the determination of the individual sanction;
- (3) the absence of a rule allowing complete elimination of the suspension in case of “no fault or negligence”;
- (4) the option of a probationary sanction;
- (5) the absence of a right of the WADA to review the granting or denial of a TUE;
- (6) the absence of any substantial assistance provision;
- (7) the presence of a rule to determine the relevant time period during which an offense is considered as a “second offense”; and
- (8) the absence of an appropriate right of information of the WADA on anti-doping decisions issued by FIFA bodies, as a condition to exercise its right of appeal.

3. As an association governed by Swiss law, FIFA is free, within the limits of mandatory Swiss law, to determine such sanctions on anti-doping violations as it deems appropriate. This includes FIFA’s competence to establish lower minimum sanctions than provided by the WADC. The competent sanctioning bodies of FIFA are obliged to apply the Anti-Doping Rules of FIFA only and may not take recourse to the WADC alternatively.


The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) have each filed a request for an Advisory Opinion in order to resolve a dispute arising out of the implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) into the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FIFA DC).

FIFA and WADA are in dispute as to whether certain rules of the WADC concerning the imposition of sanctions for anti-doping rule violations are admissible under Swiss law. FIFA is particularly concerned about the standard sanction of a two years' ineligibility (art. 10.2 WADC) with the limited possibility of eliminating or reducing the sanction only in the event of exceptional circumstances (art. 10.5 WADC).

FIFA takes the view that Swiss law requires an individual assessment of the sanction, based on the objective and subjective circumstances of the individual case. WADA submits that the WADC is compatible with Swiss law, and that the FIFA DC has disregarded a number of mandatory provisions of the WADC.

CAS 2005_A_876 Adrian Mutu vs Chelsea Football Club

15 Dec 2005

CAS 2005/A/876 Adrian Mutu v/Chelsea Football Club

Football
Employment contract between a player and a club
Admitted use of cocaine
Unilateral breach of contract without just cause

There is no basis in the wording of the FIFA Regulations for a distinction between a player unlawfully walking out under a contract and another player who breaches his contract through other serious misconduct, like the player’s taking cocaine or committing a serious on or off the pitch offence which goes to the roots of his contract with his employer. The Player’s admitted use of cocaine constitutes the “unilateral breach without just cause” provided by the FIFA Regulations and triggers the consequences deriving thereof, no matter whether this breach causes the Club to give notice of termination or whether the Club continues to hold on to and insist upon performance of the contract despite the Player’s breach.


The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 December 2005:

1.) The appeal filed by M. against the decision issued by the Football Association Premier League is dismissed.
2.) (...).

CAS 2009_A_2019 Jakub Wawrzyniak vs Hellenic Football Federation

21 May 2010

CAS 2009/A/2019 Jakub Wawrzyniak v. Hellenic Football Federation (HFF)

Related cases:
CAS 2009/A/1918 Jakub Wawrzyniak vs Helenic Football Federation - Operative Part
August 13, 2009
CAS 2009/A/1918 Jakub Wawrzyniak vs Hellenic Football Federation
January 21, 2010

1. Under a well established CAS jurisprudence, in order to determine whether an act constitutes an anti-doping rule infringement, the Panel applies the law in force at the time the act was committed. In other words, new regulations do not apply retroactively to facts that occurred prior to their entry into force, but only for the future. The principle of non-retroactivity is however mitigated by the application of the “lex mitior” principle.
2. A substance which is not explicitly included in the applicable list of prohibited substance like Methylhexaneamine, but which is however a substance similar to a prohibited substance – must be prohibited under the principle that not only are the listed substances prohibited, but also any other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s). Methylhexaneamine must therefore be considered as a prohibited substance similar to the Tuaminoheptane, a specified prohibited stimulant specifically mentioned in the 2008 Prohibited List. As a result, the presence of Methylhexaneamine in the Player’s bodily samples constitutes an anti-doping rule violation.
3. According to Article 52.5 of the 2009 FIFA ADR for the purpose of imposing sanctions, an anti-doping rule violation will only be considered a second violation if FIFA can establish that the player committed the second anti-doping rule violation after he had received notice of the first anti-doping rule violation. In this respect, if a later-in-time but earlier discovered violation has been established and that after its notification an earlier-in-time but later discovered violation is established, those violations have to be treated as one single first violation.

Jakub Wawrzyniak (the “Player” or the “Appellant”) is a professional football player of Polish nationality, born on 7 July 1983.
The Hellenic Football Federation (HFF or the “Respondent”) is the national football association for Greece. It is affiliated to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), the governing body of international football.
In the early months of 2009 the Player, who was at the time playing for the Greek football team FC Panathinaikos, underwent numerous doping controls performed by the Hellenic National Council for Combating Doping (“Eskan”).
On 5 April 2009 the Player took part in a football match between FC Panathinaikos and FC Skoda Xanthi of the Greek 1st National Division Championship. After that football match, the Player underwent a doping control (the “April Control”).
After the laboratory analysis, Eskan informed the HFF that the “A” sample collected from the Player at the April Control had tested positive for Methylhexaneamine. The adverse analytical finding of the “A” sample was notified to the Player on 6 May 2009 and thereafter confirmed by the “B” sample analysis.
As a result of the above, disciplinary proceedings (the “First Disciplinary Proceedings”) were started against the Player before the competent Greek authorities for an anti-doping rule violation.

CAS 2009_A_1918 Jakub Wawrzyniak vs Hellenic Football Federation

21 Jan 2010

CAS 2009/A/1918 Jakub Wawrzyniak v. Hellenic Football Federation (HFF)

Related cases:
CAS 2009/A/2019 Jakub Wawrzyniak vs Hellenic Football Federation
May 21, 2010
CAS 2009_A_1918 Jakub Wawrzyniak vs Helenic Football Federation - Operative Part
August 13, 2009

Football
Doping (Methylhexaneamine)
Principles of tempus regit actum and lex mitior in anti-doping rules violations
Substances similar to prohibited substances listed by the WADA administration
Meaning of no (significant) fault or negligence in the WADA Code and in the regulations of the Federations
Substances pharmacologically classified as stimulants and not identified under the monitoring programme
False information provided by the medical personnel and exemption from fault and negligence
Meaning of the balance of probability standard
CAS’ power of review and discretion of the disciplinary body of an association to set a sanction

1. In order to determine whether an act constitutes an anti-doping rule infringement, the Panel applies the principle tempus regit actum, i.e. the law in force at the time the act was committed. In other words, new regulations do not apply retroactively to facts that occurred prior to their entry into force, but only for the future, unless there are grounds for the application of the lex mitior principle.

2. The classification of a substance as “similar” to one of the listed substances made by the WADA administration can be challenged. The determination of similarity to substances expressly listed on the list of prohibited substances requires in fact the similarity to one (or several) of the listed substances; moreover, the similarity of a substance to a prohibited substance must be accompanied by the fulfilment of any two of the three criteria: the potential performance enhancement, the potential health risk, and the violation of the spirit of sport. Two of these three criteria must be met for a substance to be treated as similar and, thus, prohibited.

3. According to the CAS case law, the expressions “No Fault or Negligence” or “No Significant Fault or Negligence” should be considered as having the same meaning in all regulations (HFF, FIFA and WADC).

4. The WADA Prohibited List is an “open list” and “all substances pharmacologically classified as a stimulant and not identified under the Monitoring Programme are by definition prohibited”. This means that, even if the WADA administration could only identify the substance at a given time, Methylhexaneamine was still a prohibited substance already before that time because it was a stimulant.

5. Even in cases where the doping offence has occurred following false information


In April 2009 the Hellenic National Council for Combating Doping (ESKAN) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player Jakub Wawrzyniak after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

In June 2009 the Player filed an appeal with the HFF Appeal Committee after the Disciplinary Committee of the First Instance of the Super League in Greece sanctioned him on 4 June 2009 with a three month period of ineligibility. However the HFF Appeal Committee decided on 1 July 2009 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibiltiy which was upheld by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee on 27 July 2009 and the sanction was extended worldwide by FIFA.

In July 2009 the Player appealed the Decision of 1 July 2009 of the HFF Appeal Committee with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Considering the circumstances the CAS Panel is led to the conclusion that, on a “balance of probability”, Methylhexaneamine entered into the Player’s body through the ingestion of TightXtreme and that the Player has not used this substance in order to enhance his sporting performance. As a result, the Player “qualifies” for the application of the reduced sanction provided in specific circumstances by the pertinent rules when a “specified substance” is involved in the anti-doping rule infringement.

Therefore on 21 January 2010 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Jakub Wawrzyniak against the decision issued on 1 July 2009 by the Appeals Committee of the Hellenic Football Federation is partially upheld.
2.) The decision adopted by the Appeals Disciplinary Committee of the Hellenic Football Federation on 1 July 2009 is amended as follows:
3.) The Player Jakub Wawrzyniak is declared ineligible for the period of three (3) months, starting on 5 April 2009.
4.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
(…).

CAS 2009_A_1918 Jakub Wawrzyniak vs Helenic Football Federation - Operative Part

13 Aug 2009

CAS 2009/A/1918 Jakub Wawrzyniak v Hellenic Football Federation (HFF)

Related case:
CAS 2009/A/2019 Jakub Wawrzyniak vs Hellenic Football Federation
May 21, 2010
CAS 2009/A/1918 Jakub Wawrzyniak vs Hellenic Football Federation
January 21, 2010

Football
Provisional measures
Request for a stay of the decision


In April 2009 the Hellenic National Council for Combating Doping (ESKAN) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Player Jakub Wawrzyniak after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (dimethylpentylamine).

In June 2009 the Player filed an appeal with the HFF Appeal Committee after the Disciplinary Committee of the First Instance of the Super League in Greece sanctioned him with a three month period of ineligibility. However the HFF Appeal Committee decided on 1 July 2009 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibiltiy which was upheld by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee on 27 July 2009 and the sanction was extended worldwide by FIFA.

In July 2009 the Player appealed the Decision of 1 July 2009 of the HFF Appeal Committee with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division findsin this case that the Player has not demonstrated that the stay of the decision rendered by the HFF Appeal Committee would protect him against any irreparable harm.
Due to the Player having failed to meet the first test (existence of an irreparable harm resulting from the execution of the challenged decision), the Deputy President deems that there is no need to evaluate whether the other conditions are fulfilled and that the request for a stay of the challenged decision shall be dismissed.

Therefore on 13 August 2009 in view of Articles R37 and R52 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division decides:
1.) The request for a stay filed by Mr. Jakub Wawrzniak is dismissed.
(…).

CAS 2010_A_2229 WADA vs FIVB & Gregory Berrios

28 Apr 2011

CAS 2010/A/2229 WADA v. FIVB & Gregory Berrios

This summary is based on the allegations of the parties and the evidence adduced during this proceeding, which included elements of the record from the procedure leading up to the FIVB Decision that is being appealed, Regardless of whether they are expressly referred to herein, all the parties' allegations, evidence and arguments have been carefully considered by the Panel.
In May 2010, Berrios competed with the Puerto Rico national volleyball team on the 2010 V Men's Pan American Cup held in San Juan, Puerto Rico. On May 27, 2010, Berrios was subject to doping control. He signed the doping control form on which he declared that he was not taking any medication or other pharmaceutical substances at the time of the Control, Berrios's sample was forwarded to the WADA-accredited UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory in Los Angeles, 6. On June 18, 2010, the FIVB received a report of the laboratory that confirmed the presence of N,N-Didesmethylsibutramine, a metabolite of Sibutramine ('"Sibutramine"). a substance that is listed as a Specified Stimulant under the Prohibited List of the WADA Code, which forms an integral part of the FIVB Rules on the basis of Article 4.1 of these rules.
On the FDA website Sibutramine is qualified as "an appetite suppressant available by prescription only and a controlled substance." it the releases on its website, the FDA also wams that: "The health risk posed by these products can be very serious and include high blood pressure, seizures, tachycardia (rapid heartbeat), palpitations, heart attack, and stroke. Sibutramine, a controlled substance, was found in many of these products
[including in the product "Fatloss Slimming"] at levels much higher than the daily dosage Of Meridia, the only FDA-approved drug product containing Sibutramine. These higher leyels of Sibutramine can increase the incidence and severity of these health risks"
I. In a -written declaration made to FIVB on July 8, 2010, Berrios explained that prior to the start of the tournament, he had gained some weight as a result of a knee injury and he had decided to ingest a substance that would assist him with weight loss in order to reduce the pressure on his knee. At the hearing in this proceeding, he indicated in substance that the attempt to lose weight was also to help him perform better by getting closer to what he empirically deemed his ideal playing weight, but that to achieve that goal he had never intended to ingest any prohibited substance and thereby enhance his performance in a manner contrary to anti-doping regulations. Without consulting a physician or member of the team's medical staff, Berrios proceeded to buy a product named "Fat Loss Slimming Beauty" (the "Product") from an up-market local natural products store named "Freshmart".
At the hearing in this proceeding, Berrios declared that he believed in a healthy life style and for that reason had the custom of also sometimes going to Freshmart to eat in its cafeteria» accompanied by his girlfriend, Ms Yoliann Cabeza Rivera.
He said that given the type of up-market natural products store it was, he believed Freshmart would only sell natural products and that upon purchasing the Product he had questioned the employee about a suitable natural product helping with weight loss and had
been recommended "Fat Loss Slimming Beauty**.
The following is an extract from the website of Freshmart: "Founded in 1995, Freshmart is theflrst supermarket fuïly dedicated to natura! products. Puerto Rican company 100% committed to the pursuit of fresh, pure and clear through his careful selection. Product your health through food and products free of preservatives, dyes or artificial flavour additives [...] The customer can visit Freshmart andflnd a supernarket where you can enjoy breakfast, lunch andtake an afiernoon snack in the cafeteria, also can participate in our vegetarian cooking classes are free"
Berrios added that he had fully trusted the employee's recommendation and submits that neither the box nor the provided product information revealed that the Product contained a substance that could be compared with or identified as a prohibited substance.
Berrios also submits an Internet search of the ingredients listed on the package, which he performed before ingesting the Product and which did not suggest that it contained prohibited substances. He submits that his search did not lead him to the releases of the FDA.
After' having been informed of his positive analytic results, Berrios provided a sample of the Product to the FIVB hearing panel.
On his own initiative, Berrios commissioned NMS Labs in the United States to test the Product for the presence of controlled substances and pharmaceuticals.
By letter dated November 3j 2010, the laboratory confirmed the presence of Sibutramine in the Product.
Berrios also filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FDA.

CAS A4_2007 ASADA vs Andrew Wyper

21 Aug 2008

CAS A4/2007 ASADA v/ Andrew Wyper

The events giving rise to the proceedings occurred on about 20 November 2005 when quantities of human growth hormone and (hGH) and Erythropoietin (EPO) which are banned substances under the Anti-Doping Policy, were seized in Sydney by the
Department of Customs on their arrival into Australia. Mr Wyper was subsequently charged with the criminal offence of importing prohibited imports (that is the hGH and the EPO) in contravention of s.233(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1901.
When the matter came before Magistrate Dillon on 21 November 2006, Mr Wyper entered a plea of guilty and was fined $2,000. His legal representative told the court that “there was nothing surreptitious at the way he did it. He used his mother’s credit card. He ordered it in his own name. It came to his own house. There was no concealing. There’s no commercial aspect to it. He was thinking of using it purely for the purpose of trying to enhance his abilities and trying to get” a professional cycling contract in the United States.
As the drugs had been seized in Sydney, the drugs were not in fact delivered to the delivery address which was his parents’ home at 50 Gordon Street, Inverell, a country town approximately 600 kilometres north west of Sydney. His subsequent appeal to the District Court against the severity of the sentence to the Sydney District was upheld on 2 January 2007.
Whilst Mr Wyper admitted to those facts which are necessary to support the ingredients of the criminal offence of importing prohibited imports, he disputed that the admitted matters
established the two violations alleged by ASADA which were (1) constructive possession of a prohibited substance, and (2) attempted use of a prohibited substance. In essence it
was submitted that the elements in the criminal offence of importing EPO and hGH differed from the elements of the two violations of the terms of the Anti-Doping Policy which were alleged by ASADA.

CAS 2008_A_1515 WADA vs Swiss Olympic & Simon Daubney

2 Oct 2008

CAS 2008/A/1515 WADA v/Swiss Olympic Association & Simon Daubney

The America's Cup is a silver cup trophy, which was won for the first time in 1851 by the yacht "America". It was then donated by the owner of the "America" to the New York Yacht Club by Deed of Gift dated 24 October 1887. Under the terms of this document the holder of the Cup becomes its sole trustee, to be succeeded only by a successful challenger in a race at sea.
In 2007, the America's Cup was in the hands of the SNG, which selected Team Alinghi to defend the trophy on its behalf, Mr Simon Daubney participated in the 32"** America's Cup sailing race (hereinafter also referred to as the "Event"), as one of the sail trimmers of Team Alinghi. This sporting event took place in Valencia, Spain and was a "first to five" (best-of-nine) series that opposed the defender to Team New Zealand, the winner of the Louis Vuitton Cup.
The Event started on 23 June and ended on 3 July 2007, when Team Alinghi successfully defended its second America's Cup title by winning the best of nine series, 5-2.
The Findings in anti-doping testing
On 23 June 2007, Mr Simon Daubney was subject to in-competition drug testing. The WADA-accredited "Laboratório de control del dopaje" in Madrid, Spain, was instructed to conduct the analysis of Mr Simon Daubney's urine sample. In its report dated 11 July 2007, it confirmed that it had identified in Mr Simon Daubney's A sample the presence of Ecgonina metil ester and Benzoilecgonina.
It is undisputed that Ecgonina metil ester and Benzoilecgonina are metabolites of cocaïne, which is a stimulant included in the list of prohibited substances under the World Anti-Doping Code (hereinafter referred to as the "WADAC").
On 14 July 2007, the positive results were communicated to Mr Simon Daubney.
At the hearing held in Lausanne on 1 September 2008 (see section III.4 below), the Appellant accepted the contention that Mr Simon Daubney volimtarily put on hold his caréer and has refrained from taking part in any official competitions since 14 July 2007.
On 8 August 2007 and at the request of Mr Simon Daubney, a confirmatory analysis was carried out on his B sample. it corroborated the results of the analyses conducted on the A sample.
At the hearing held in Lausanne on 1 September 2008 (see section in.4 below), Mr Simon Daubney declared that he was not challenging the laboratory results.
On 11 September 2007, Mr Bruce Burgess, a polygraph expert, administered a polygraph examination (so-called lie detector test) to Mr Simon Daubney. During the examination, Mr Daubney gave negative answers to the questions whether he had (i) ever used cocaine, (ii) used cocaine during the 32"** America's Cup, or (iii) used cocaine at all in 2007. On the basis of suoh polygraph examination. Mr Burgess attested in a letter to Mr Daubney that it was his firm opinion that Mr Daubney had been truthful in his answers to the aforementioned questions.

CAS 2010_A_2277 Roberto La Barbera vs IWAS

2 May 2011

CAS 2010/A/2277 Roberto La Barbera v. International Wheelchair & Amputee Sports Federation (IWAS)

Paralympic athletics
Doping (stanozolol)
Departure from the International Standard for Testing (no)
Balance of probability
Requirement of establishing how the Prohibited Substance entered the athlete’s system
Absence of fault or negligence (no)

1. The doping control form is intended to provide contemporaneous record of the doping control procedure. While an athlete’s signature does not amount to a waiver of the athlete’s right to later allege that the requirements of the International Standard for Testing (IST) have been breached, such signature is of potential evidential value in determining whether the procedures set out in the IST have been complied with. The athlete’s plain signature of the doping control records expresses his approval of the procedure and prevents him – short of compelling evidence of manipulation of the records or fraud or any similar facts – from raising any such issue at a later stage.

2. The balance of probability standard means that the indicted athlete bears the burden of persuading the judging body that the occurrence of the circumstances on which he relies is more probable than their non-occurrence or more probable than other possible explanations of the doping offence.

3. The requirement of showing how the Prohibited Substance got into the athlete’s system must be enforced quite strictly since, if the manner in which a substance entered an athlete’s system is unknown or unclear, it is logically difficult to determine whether the athlete has taken precautions in attempting to prevent such occurrence. Consequently, the “threshold” requirement of proof means not only that the athlete must show the route of administration but that he must be able to prove the factual circumstances in which administration occurred. One hypothetical source of a positive test does not prove to the level of satisfaction required that such explanations are factually or scientifically probable. Mere speculation is not proof that it did actually occur.

4. Athletes are responsible for what they ingest. Taking into account the strict liability principle resulting therefrom, in order to establish No Fault or Negligence, the athlete must prove that he did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected, even with the exercise of utmost care, that he had used or been administered with the prohibited substance.


Conclusion

The IWAS has established that Mr La Barbera had committed an anti-doping violation rule according to Art. 2.1 of the IWAS Code, since both A and B Samples have confirmed the presence of Stanozolol and 16β-hydroxystanozol, a metabolite of Stanozolol, a prohibited substance appearing on the WADA 2010 Prohibited List under category S1(1)(a), exogenous anabolic androgenic steroid (art. 2.1.2 of the IWAS Code).

Mr La Barbera has been unable to discharge his burden of proving under Art. 3.1 and 3.2.2 of the IWAS Code that, on a balance of probability, (i) there had been any departure from the IST in the way the doping control procedure was carried out and that (ii) such departure could reasonably have caused the adverse analytical finding.

Mr La Barbera has been unable to discharge his burden of proving under Art. 10.5 of the IWAS Code how, on a balance of probability (i) the Prohibited Substance had entered his system and that (ii) such ingestion had occurred without any (Significant) Fault or Negligence.

As a result, the appeal filed by Mr La Barbera has to be dismissed and, taking into account Art. 9, 10.1 and 10.2 of the IWAS Code (see paras 22-24), the decision issued by the IWAS Tribunal on 20 October 2010 is affirmed.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 May 2011:

1.) The appeal filed on 17 November 2010 by Mr Roberto La Barbera against the decision of the IWAS Anti-Doping Committee Hearing Panel dated 20 October 2010 is dismissed.
2.) The decision rendered on 20 October 2010 by the IWAS Anti-Doping Committee Hearing Panel is confirmed.
(…)
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2009_A_1879 Alejandro Valverde vs CONI, WADA & UCI

16 Mar 2010

CAS 2009/A/1879 Alejandro Valverde Belmonte v. Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano
CAS 2009/A/1879 Alejandro Valverde vs CONI, WADA & UCI

Related cases:
CAS 2007/A/1396 WADA & UCI vs Alejandro Valverde & RFEC
May 31, 2010
CAS 2007/O/1381 RFEC & Alejandro Valverde vs UCI
September 26, 2007
Swiss Federal Court 4A_234_2010 Alejandro Valverde vs CONI, WADA & UCI
October 29, 2010
Swiss Federal Court 4A_386_2010 Alejandro Valverde vs WADA, UCI & RFEC
January 3, 2011
Swiss Federal Court 4A_420_2010 Alejandro Valverde vs WADA, UCI & RFEC
January 3, 2011
Swiss Federal Court 4A_644_2009 Alejandro Valverde vs CONI, WADA & UCI
April, 13, 2010

This case originated from the investigation known as “Operation Puerto”, which began in Spain in 2004 as part of a coordinated investigation involving the Juzgado de Instrucción no. 31 of Madrid (“Investigating magistrate no. 31”) and the Spanish Civil Guard. The objective of this criminal proceeding was the doping practices of physicians and other parties that could constitute “offences against public health” as defined in Article 361 of the Spanish Penal Code. As mentioned infra, doping by an athlete did not constitute an offence in Spain at the time of the incriminating facts.
The Civil Guard carried out telephone monitoring, as well as numerous warrants, pursuant to which several people were arrested. Among these people was Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes, the alleged mastermind of a clandestine international doping network.
At the time of his arrest on May 23, 2006, Dr. Fuentes was carrying a card from the Silken Hotel, on the back of which was written a list of pseudonyms and the name “Valverde”.
In the context of the investigation, the Civil Guard seized a large quantity of documents, equipment, doping products (hormones, steroids, etc.), as well as bags of blood and plasma. Most of the approximately 200 blood bags seized contained a code number permitting the identification of the athlete to whom the blood belonged. Dr. Fuentes confirmed this, admitting that the blood bags identified by means of codes were intended to be re-transfused into the athletes from whom they were taken.
On May 30, 2006, RFEC was made civil party to a court action in the context of the investigative proceedings conducted by Investigating magistrate no. 31. UCI and WADA were also made civil parties to the same proceedings.
The Civil Guard drafted a report (“Report no. 116”) dated June 27, 2006, describing the organization and operations of Dr. Fuentes’ doping network, in which, in the section describing the blood bags seized, reference was made to a bag of plasma with the reference “18 VALV. (PITI)” (“Bag no. 18”); see Documents no. 114 and 116, summarized in Report no. 116, page 3).
Report no. 116 also contained a list of athletes suspected of being involved in Operation Puerto. The Athlete’s name did not appear on this list.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin