(CAS) Bulletin - Tribunal Arbitral du Sport / TAS

that it did not have any particular objection against
any of them. The Panel also noted that the existence of
a second exchange of written submissions may allow
a signifi cant reduction of the number of witnesses to
be heard. The Panel also proposed to the parties to
hold the hearing between 1 and 4 November 2011
provided that the second exchange of submissions is
concluded by the end of September 2011.
On 22 August 2011, the Panel fi xed the hearing dates
from 21 November 2011 midday until 24 November
2011 midday and granted to the parties a deadline
until 9 September 2011 to fi le with the CAS their
lists of experts and witnesses as well as an indicative
hearing schedule.
On 22 August 2011, WADA fi led its supplementary
brief.
The UCI did not fi le any additional submission.
On 29 September 2011, Mr Contador requested
an extension of 10 days to fi le his additional
submissions, i.e. until 14 October 2011, and indicated
that the Appellants did not object to such request.
Therefore, the President of the Panel, by letter dated
30 September 2011, confi rmed such extension.
On 13 October 2011, Mr Contador requested a
further extension until 19 October 2011 to fi le his
additional submissions due to the fact that he was
still waiting for two expert reports which were not
yet completed.
On 14 October 2011, the President of the Panel
decided to exceptionally grant such extension.
On 19 October 2011, Mr Contador fi led his second
written submission.
The RFEC did not fi le any additional submission.
On 4 November 2011, the Panel decided to deny the
Respondents’ request for private expert conferencing.
On 8 November 2011, Mr Contador requested
WADA to present a clarifi cation as to the testimony
of Mr Javier Lopez, as no evidence was brought by
this witness. Finally, Mr Contador requested CAS
to enable the parties’ experts to engage in an open
discussion in front of the Panel and the parties during
their allocated examination time.
On 9 November 2011, WADA presented a general
description of the testimony of the above-mentioned
witness and argued that the fi ling of witness
statements is not mandatory before CAS, and that
there was no need to be more specifi c. Furthermore,
WADA agreed to Mr Contador’s proposal for the
parties’ experts to engage in an open discussion in
front of the Panel, each party and the Panel being
permitted to ask questions to the experts during such
discussions.
On 11 November 2011, Mr Contador fi led a
clarifi cation of its objection against the hearing of
WADA’s witness and expressed its concern that new
evidence might be presented by this witness and
expressed its objection in that regard.
On the same date, WADA submitted its position on
the hearing of its witness and clarifi ed its argument
that it had acted in accordance with the Code.
On the same date, the Panel presented an amended
tentative hearing schedule taking into consideration
the issues raised by Mr Contador in his letter of 8
November 2011. The Panel also decided to authorize
the hearing of Mr Javier Lopez under the condition
that WADA provide a brief summary of the expected
expertise/expert opinion of the witness. Finally, the
parties were informed of the Panel’s intention to hear
the experts in experts’ conferences, during which
all the experts addressing the same issue would be
present.
The RFEC, Mr Contador, WADA and UCI returned
duly signed Orders of Procedure on 10, 11, 11 and 14
November 2011 respectively.
On 15 November 2011, WADA presented a brief
summary of the expected testimony of Mr Javier
Lopez as requested by the Panel on 11 November
2011.
On 16 November 2011, Mr Contador presented a
recently published news story to which the Athlete
intended to refer during the course of the hearing.
This issue was dealt with as a preliminary matter on
the fi rst day of the hearing.
In its statement of appeal of 24 March 2011, the UCI
indicated that its appeal “aims at:
- having the contested decision annulled and reformed,
- having Mr Alberto Contador Velsaco sanctioned in
accordance with UCI’s anti-doping rules”.
In its appeal brief of 24 March 2011, the UCI made
the following requests for relief:
- “ To set aside the contested decision;
Jurisprudence majeure / Leading cases
-
104