You are on page 1of 98
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport CAS 2011/A/2384 UCL v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC CAS 2011/A/2386 WADA ¥. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by ‘COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT Sitting in the following composition: President: ‘Mr Eftaim Barak, attomey-at-law in Tel Aviy, Israel ‘Arbitrators: Dr Quentin Byrne-Sutton, attomey-at-law in Geneva, Switzerland Mr Ulrich Haas, Professor in Zitrich, Switzerland Ad hoc clerk: Mr Dennis Koolaard, Broek op Langedijk, the Netherlands in the arbitration between UNION CYCLISTE INTERNATONAL (UCD, Aigle, Switzerland Represented by Mr Philippe Verbiest, attorney-at-law in Leuven, Belgium, and Mr Pablo Jimenez de Parga, attomey-at-law in Madrid, Spain -First Appellant- and WORLD ANTI-DOPING AGENCY (WADA), Lausanne, Switzerland Represented by Mr Jean-Pierre Morand, Mr Yvan Henzer, Mr Ross Wenzel, attorneys-at-law in Lausanne, Switzerland and Mr Olivier Niggli, WADA Legal Counsel, attomey-at-law in Lausanne, Switzerland, Second Appeilant- and ALBERTO CONTADOR VELASCO, Madrid, Spain Represented by Mr Mike Morgan, solicitor-at-law in London, United Kingdom, Mr Adam Lewis QC, barrister-at-law in London, United Kingdom, Mr Antonio Rigozzi, attorney-at-law in Genova, ‘Switzerland and Mr Gorka Villar, atforney-at-law in Madrid, Spain -First Respondent- and. REAL FEDERACION ESPANOLA DE CICLISMO (RFEC), Madrid, Spain. Represented by Dr. Luiz. Sanz Hemandez. and Ms Carmen Ramos, attomeys-ataw in Madrid, Spain “Second Respondent- CChatoau de Béthusy Av. de Beaumont2 CH-1012 Lausanne Tél: +41 21 619.5000 Fax: +41 21 613.5001 wunw.tes-cas.org i i CAS 2011/§2384 UCL v. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC - Page 2 ‘Tribunal Arbitval du Sport GAS 2011/A/2386 WADA v. Alberto Contador Velasco & REEC Court of Arbitration for Sport I. Tar Parvies Il. FACTUAL BACKGROUND TIL, PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CNCDD oF THE RFEC JV. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR. ‘Srort V. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES A, UCI B WADA C. MrConrapor D. RFEC VI. THE HEARING VII. Sunispicrion VII, ADMISSIBILITY TX. APPLICABLE LAW'TO THE MERITS X, PRELIMINARY ISSUES ‘A. Tite PROTECTED WiTNESS B. WrnvessSrareMenr OF Mr Javirr LOPEZ C._ADMISSIBILITY OF NEWLY PRESENTED RVIDENCE XI MERITS (1) APPLicapLe REGULATORY FRAMEWORK (2) Taw Issues THAT NEED TO BE DECIDED @) THE APPLICATION OF THE BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE A, UCT B. WADA C. MrConrapor D. RFEC E, POSITION OF THE PANEL. (4) ‘THe MEAT CONTAMINATION THEORY ‘A. DID THE ATHLETE BAT MEAT ON BOTH 20 AND 21 JULY 2010? B.WAS THE MEAT THE ATHLETE ATE CONTAMINATED WITH CLENBUTBROL? 1) Asto the supply chain of the meat in question 2) Asto the regulatory framework 3) Asto the statistics C.. Thtl PHARMACOKINETICS 'D.- Tits PANEL'S CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE MEAT CONTAMINATION THSORY : ; f CAS 2011/A/2384 UCI v, Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC -Page 3 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport CAS 201 1/4/2386 WADA ¥. Alberto Contador Velasco & RFEC Court of Arbitration for Sport (S) Tur BLOOD TRANSFUSION THEORY "A, THE ALLEGED TAINTED ENVIRONMENT OF THE ATHLETE, B, THE ATHLETR’S BLOOD PARAMEDERS C.TRACES OF PHTHALATES 1) The polygraphic examination 2) The scienlific possibility 3) ‘The pharmacological and toxicological possibility ‘act. The toxic clenbuterol treatment of the theoretical donor 2.2 The donation shortly after the last administration b, The Athlete’s urine production e. Fiting to the data D.. Tup PANEL'S CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE BLOOD TRANSFUSION THEORY (© Tae SurrLeent THEORY (1) Is TUR Meat CONTAMINATION THEORY MORE LIKELY TO HAVE OCCURED ‘THAN THE SUPPLEMENT THEORY? XII. THE SANCTIONS XIII, THE STARTING DATE OF THE PERIOD OF INELIGIBILITY XIV. CONCLUSION XV. Costs