CAS Information

Bill Hue

This is an interesting article relating to Floyd Landis' recent decision to appeal his case to CAS:


>http://web.wcsn.com/article/news.jsp?ymd=20070928&content_id=44177&vkey=cycling_news&id=34009&dpre

One of the arbitrators in the CAS pool, Jan Paulsson, sounds like a Campbell type but with some influence over his fellow arbitrators.


Note that Paulsson thinks his main qualification is his total independence. He isn't a sportsman. He knows neither the fun nor joy in sport. He is an independent lawyer, author and teacher headquartered in Paris. He doesn't embrace what WADA says makes sport unique. He simply believes in following the rules. His mere presence must both upset and scare WADA.

[MORE]


Paulsson is available to be selected by athletes to serve on the Panel under CAS rules for selecting the Panel, which are worth repeating here.

Under R53, both the athlete and the ADA select their Panelist but, in contrast to the initial hearing Panel in which a process of elimination occured resulting in Brunet's selection as chair, only the president or deputy president of the CAS Appeals Division selects the Panel's president.

You can access the rules, by clicking on the PDF on the left side of the page, here:

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/code/frmco.htm


I've excerpted some interesting stuff from the article, below;

"Matthew Raab, the secretary general of CAS, said by phone Friday that he understands why Suh would be interested in Paulsson serving as the panel's president.

"Jan Paulsson is one our most experienced
arbitrators," he said. "He is very well acquainted not only with commercial cases but also doping cases. And he has ruled in favor of a cyclist against the international cycling union."

Paulsson is an attorney for the firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Paris and has written textbooks on international arbitration. He served as president of a CAS panel in December 2006 that ruled in favor of Inigo Landaluze, a Spanish cyclist who complained that a lab made mistakes during the doping control and analysis after he tested positive for testosterone following the 2005 Dauphine-Libere race in France. The lab was Chatenay-Malabry, the same lab that tested Landis's Tour de France sample.

The CAS panel ruled for Landaluze after it agreed with the intention that a lab employee analyzed both the cyclists 'A' and 'B' samples, which is a violation of an international testing standard. Landaluze, who finished 43rd in the 2007 Tour de France, was acquitted of the doping charge.

Paulsson said Friday by phone from France that he has served on between 30 and 40 CAS panels. "I have noticed that sometimes my primary qualification serving on some tribunals is that I have a total lack of interest in a particular sport," he said. "For example, I sit in quite a few soccer cases. I don't have anything to do with the sport or teams."

Paulsson said he believes he will sit on one or two CAS panels in the "coming" months, and that that would not preclude him from being considered as a president of the Landis panel if the cyclist appeals."

I believe the transcripts, exhibits and briefs from the initial hearing will form the core of the review. The parties, because this is de novo or anew (rather than a review of the decision for error as Appellate Courts usually do), will be permitted to supplement the record as they see fit and brief differently as they see fit.

My guess is that they will not do much "live" but will engage in most if not all of the presentation by phone and on paper.

As Landis has been quoted as saying: Most of the work has been done so proceeding in this hearing will be pretty cost effective.

It will be a closed hearing because WADA rules provide that the hearing is closed. It was only a special provision in USADA's rules which allowed for the initial hearing to be open upon the athlete's request. That provision was most likely beneficial to USADA's receipt of taxpayer funding.

Perhaps there will be a ceremonial type meeting for no more than a few days. That could occur in Switzerland but the parties and Panel Chair may agree under the Rule 28 to physically hear the matter in a convienient location, including in the United States. That is the most likely scenario, in my opinion.