Arbitration Newsletter Switzerland Gert Thys' longest Marathon Gatatso "Gert" Thys, born 1971, is a South-African Tribunal (which heard all of the evidence) disbanded marathon runner. He participated twice in the Olym- itself and a new ASA Tribunal held one hearing, in pics (1996 Atlanta and 2004 Athens), but did not which Gert Thys did not participate. It then suspended make it to the top 15. He won, however, several inter- Gert Thys for two years and seven and a half months, national marathons, amongst others the Tokyo Inter- which is - conveniently - exactly the time it took ASA national Men's Marathon in 1999 with the excellent to render its decision. The standard sanction for such time of 2:06:33. He won also the Seoul International a (first) doping offence is generally two years only! Marathon in 2003, 2004 and 2006. But this last victory was a sour one: Gert Thys was tested positive in a On January 7, 2009, Gert Thys filed an appeal at the subsequent doping analysis! CAS,1 mainly based on the argument that DCC vio- lated Section 5.2.4.3.2.2 of the WADA Code Interna- In sports every finisher of a marathon is a winner. In tional Standard for Laboratories ("ISL") by having the legal marathons this is different: there is usually a same analyst test both the "A" and "B" samples.2 looser. Gert Thys is the looser - as established in the most recent decision of the Federal Supreme Court ASA did concede that there was indeed an overlap in annulling now for the fifth time a CAS Award. the personnel who carried out the analyses of the "A" and "B" samples but argued, as well, that the irregu- larity did not undermine the validity of the adverse 1 Facts of the Case analytical finding. According to the CAS Award ASA The doping testing of Gert Thys at the Seoul Mara- did raise also a point in limine that the CAS had no thon was sent to the Doping Control Centre of the jurisdiction to hear this appeal as the ASA Rules do Korea Institute of Science and Technology in Seoul not provide for any right of appeal to the CAS and that ("DCC"). DCC is a laboratory accredited by the World Gert Thys was (no longer) an international-level ath- Anti-Doping Agency ("WADA"). On March 16, 2006, lete and therefore had no right of appeal to the CAS the "A" sample was tested by Mr Z, and the prohibited under the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules. Alternatively, ASA substance 19-Norandrosterone was found. The Inter- submitted that Gert Thys had failed to exhaust the national Association of Athletics Federations ("IAAF") internal remedies available to him. passed this result on to "Athletics South Africa" ("ASA"), which notified Gert Thys of the positive test and informed him of his right to have the "B" sample tested. As Gert Thys did not offer any explanation for 1 CAS 2009/A/1767, with Lars Halgren, Copenhagen, as the presence of 19-Norandrosterone in the "A" sam- President, Olivier Carrard, Geneva, and Silvia Schenk, ple he was suspended from all competitions by ASA. Frankfurt, as Arbitrators. The award has not been pub- Gert Thys requested the opening of the "B" sample lished. which occurred again by Mr Z, under the supervision 2 This provision provided at that time that: of a Dr. B. The "B" sample revealed again the exis- "The "B" sample confirmation must be performed in the tence of 19-Norandrosterone. On September 10, same Laboratory as the "A" Sample confirmation. A dif- 2006, ASA started with the first disciplinary hearing. ferent analyst must perform the "B" analytical procedure. But proceedings did not really move on due to nu- The same individual(s) that perform the "A" analysis may merous adjournments not further described in the perform instrumental set up and performance checks and Federal Supreme Court decision. At the end the ASA verify results". 1 | 4 According to Gert Thys ASA and himself had entered rounding circumstances and, based also on various into a "specific arbitration agreement", as provided for previous decisions of the Federal Supreme Court, in R47 Section 1 of the ASA Code,3 since he received held: a letter dated April 10, 2008 ("Letter") from Dr. G, the IAAF Anti-Doping Administrator, where this Dr. G "The Panel feels satisfied that ASA and the Discipli- offered to settle the matter for a two year suspension nary Commission knew of the existence of Dr. [G's] subject to Gert Thys' acceptance of an anti-doping letter of 10 April 2008, and the Disciplinary Commis- rule violation. The Letter stated, amongst other, the sion should have brought Thys' attention to the fact following: that he had to appeal to national authorities, if the direct appeal to the CAS was not possible in ASA's "I would remind you that the decision that will ulti- view. However, the decision of ASA does not contain mately be taken by the relevant disciplinary commis- any such precision, in fact nothing was said about sion of ASA after 16th May will still be subject to an Thys' possibility of an appeal, and he could therefore appeal to the Court of Arbitration of Sport in in good faith rely on the fact that this silence meant Lausanne, on your initiative if you disagree with it or the approval of Dr. [G's] letter. Thus, the letter of Dr. on the initiative of the IAAF, if the decision is not in [G] incorporates, by reference, Article 60.11 of the accordance with the IAAF Rules. This will inevitably IAAF Rules.4 Such a reference is considered as valid lead to a costly and lengthy arbitration procedure until by the Swiss PILA, as interpreted by the case-law of the final award is rendered by CAS." the Swiss Federal Tribunal. The Panel is of the opin- ion that such liberal approach is correct, because it At CAS Gert Thys then argued that he: favours arbitration." "reasonably and detrimentally relied on that advice As to the merits of the case the CAS Tribunal found from the IAAF, and field this appeal to CAS on his guidance in two previous CAS Awards, both dealing own initiative when he was dissatisfied with the ulti- with similar irregularities in analysing the "B" probe in mate decision of the ASA Disciplinary Tribunal." accordance with ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2,5 and held that ASA failed to prove to the panel's comfortable satisfaction In the hearing at the CAS Gert Thys argued also that that the departure from ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2.2 did not un- he was never informed by ASA about his rights of dermine the validity of the adverse analytical finding. appeal and that the one-page decision of the ASA Consequently, the CAS Tribunal upheld the appeal of Disciplinary Tribunal contained no arguments what- Gert Thys and set aside the ASA Decision of Decem- soever. It was also on record that the chairmen of the ber 11, 2008. Furthermore, it stated that Gert Thys ASA Disciplinary Tribunal stated once at a hearing: had not forfeited his price money, income and bene- fits derived from his victory in the Seoul Marathon in "One of the big problems that we have over here is March 2006. that IAAF is watching this matter very, very closely, and the likelihood is, that if, in their view, an incorrect Against this decision ASA filed an action for annul- decision is taken, it will go straight to CAS". ment under Article 190 PILA with the Federal Su- preme Court. The CAS Tribunal then analysed in a very detailed and careful way the content of the Letter in its sur- 3 "An appeal against the decision of a federation, associa- 4 "In cases involving International-Level athletes (or their tion or sports-related body may be filed with the CAS inso- athlete support personnel), or involving the sanction of a far as the statutes or regulations of the said body so pro- Member by the Council for breach of the Rules, whether vide or as the parties have concluded a specific arbitration doping or non-doping related, the decision of the relevant agreement and insofar as the Appellant has exhausted body of the Member or the IAAF (as appropriate) may be the legal remedies available to him prior to the appeal, in appealed exclusively to CAS in accordance with the pro- accordance with the statues or regulations of the said visions set out in Rules 60.25 to 60.30." sports-related body." 5 In the matters of Landaluce and Jenkins, respectively, but not further identified. 2 | 4 2 Considerations of the Federal Supreme Court believe that he would enter into any binding commit- ment on behalf of IAAF as to that issue. In a first step the Federal Supreme Court had to ana- lyse whether ASA, as Claimant, had still a legitimate The Letter was rather an offer for an "expedite" han- interest for this action for annulment. Gert Thys con- dling of the proceedings since at the date the Letter tested this but the Federal Supreme Court had to was sent (April 10, 2008) the proceedings at the Dis- examine this question ex officio anyway. In doing so it ciplinary Commission were still pending. The Letter came to the conclusion that ASA, as national associa- was simply, in the view of the Federal Supreme tion, had a legitimate interest that the CAS Award be Court, an offer to put an end to those lengthy pro- annulled, thus preventing Gert Thys from collecting ceedings but not a double offer that would entitle Gert the price money for a victory achieved under a doping Thys, in case of declining such first offer, to accept a offence.