(CAS) Bulletin - Tribunal Arbitral du Sport / TAS

provisional suspension and also to explain the
management process of the case. On this occasion,
Mr Contador requested the opening and analysis
of the B Sample (B-2512045) and acknowledged
the decision that he was provisionally suspended.
During this meeting, the Athlete explained that the
origin of the Prohibited Substance must have been
contaminated meat.
On 8 September 2010, in the presence of Mr
Contador’s representatives, Dr de Boer and Mr
Ramos, the B Sample analysis took place. The result
of the Analysis of the B Sample confi rmed the A
Sample result.
As a consequence of the low concentration of
clenbuterol found in Mr Contador’s A and B Samples
and the fact that the samples that had been collected
prior to 21 July 2010 did not contain clenbuterol,
the UCI, as well as WADA, decided to conduct a
series of investigations in an attempt to understand
the fi nding obtained and, in particular, whether
the fi nding might indicate that other anti-doping
violations could have been committed than just the
presence of clenbuterol.
Following the investigation conducted together with
WADA (WADA issued a report on 5 November
2010), the UCI concluded that the fi le contained
a suffi cient basis to proceed with the case as an
apparent anti-doping rule violation. Therefore, by
letter of 8 November 2010, and pursuant to Article
234 UCI ADR, the UCI asked the RFEC to initiate
disciplinary proceedings against Mr Contador.
A. Proceedings Before the CNCDD
of the RFEC
On 10 November 2010, the acceptance of the
documentation submitted by UCI led to the fact that
the Comité Nacional de Competición y Disciplina Deportiva
(the “CNCDD”) of the RFEC, which sanctioning
responsibilities for the processing of this case are
delegated by said international organisation, agreed
to the initiation of the Disciplinary Proceeding with
number 17/2010 against Mr Contador, for the alleged
breach pursuant to Article 21(1) and (2) UCI ADR.
On 26 November 2010, Mr Contador was heard by
the CNCDD of the RFEC.
The silence of the UCI and WADA in relation to the
request for documentary and scientifi c collaboration
made by the CNCDD led the Examining Judge, and
later on the CNCDD to conduct the preliminary
investigation of the case and, respectively, to issue
its decision solely on the notifi cation of the adverse
results and the evidence presented by the Athlete.
On 25 January 2011, the examining judge of the
CNCDD made a proposition to Mr Contador aiming
at imposing to him a one year licence suspension.
On 7 February 2011, Mr Contador refused the
proposal made by the examining judge of the
CNCDD.
On 14 February 2011, the CNCDD rendered a
decision according to which Mr Contador was
acquitted (the “Decision ”).
B. Proceedings Before the Court
of Arbitration for Sport
On 24 March 2011, the UCI fi led an appeal at the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against Mr
Contador and the RFEC with respect to the Decision
pursuant to the Code of Sports-related Arbitration
2010 edition (the “Code ”).
In its statement of appeal, the UCI nominated Dr
Quentin Byrne-Sutton, attorney-at-law in Geneva,
Switzerland, as arbitrator.
On 29 March 2011, WADA fi led an appeal at the CAS
against Mr Contador and the RFEC with respect to
the Decision pursuant to the Code. In its statement
of appeal, WADA nominated Dr Quentin Byrne-
Sutton as arbitrator.
On 31 March 2011, the CAS Court Offi ce suspended
the time limit for the UCI to fi le its appeal brief
pending an agreement of the parties or a decision
from the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration
Division, or his Deputy, on the issues of the
consolidation and of the procedural calendar.
On 4 April 2011, following the parties’ agreement,
the CAS Court Offi ce informed that both appeals
shall be consolidated and be heard by the same Panel.
Furthermore, the CAS Court Offi ce informed the
parties that all their letters on the procedural calendar
were forwarded to the President of the CAS Appeals
Arbitration Division, or his Deputy, in order for a
decision to be taken in this respect.
On 5 April 2011, the CAS Court Offi ce informed the
parties that the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals
Arbitration Division had decided to fi x the deadline
for the Appellants appeal briefs on 18 April 2011.
Moreover, the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals
Arbitration Division had decided that since the
parties did not agree on a full procedural calendar,
it will be for the Panel, once constituted, to decide
Jurisprudence majeure / Leading cases
-
102