[MUSIC] Could you introduce yourself quickly please. And tell us a bit about your background and to explain what brings you to this court of attrition for sport? >> Of course my name is Matthieu Reeb, Secretary General of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. I've been doing this since 2000, beginning as an advisor. I have dealt with arbitration procedures since the beginning. 1995. I'm a trained lawyer but I moved into the area sports law fairly quickly because I was able to reconcile my two centers of interest, sports and law. And we had this opportunity to develop this Court of Arbitration for Sport. There were only three employees at the beginning with about 40 cases. Today there are 25 staff and we deal with close to 450 cases per year. >> Doctor Reeb, what is Court of Arbitration for Sport? >> Well, the Court of Arbitration for Sport is arbitrol. It needs, to exist, it has to have an agreement between, among the users of the service. This agreement can be formed by a contract. An athlete, a federation, a sponsor will sign a contract, in which there will be a clause that says that in the event of a dispute, the Court of Arbitration is competent to resolve it. It can be signed after a dispute occurs. There can be a letter with a double signature. But generally, this agreement in the regulations of federations which have which provide for a right to appeal any decision. Where they might say for example any decision can be challenged at the Court of Arbitration for Sport. It's sufficient for us to implement an arbitration procedures and would lead to enforceable awards. >> So if I'm in a federation and there is a sample that was taken from me and it turns out to be positive, then without knowing it, I become a part of this legislation system. I can automatically go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport people, because I am a member of the federation? >> Yes, this means you should not ignore the fact that a CAS clause exists, some athletes have attempted to go to ordinary courts with varying degrees of success because parties are supposed to come to us in such a case. Some years ago, about 20 years ago, athletes were saying that they had not personally adhered to this system, and they felt they were free to go to another court. But experience shows that in spite of the legal matters, it is in their interests to come to the CAS, because the procedure is very swift. It is not costly. It is often times cost free, and the awards are made by in fact, the idea about going to the civil justice unless there are special strategies, it is preferable in fact, to go to the court of arbitration for sport because it makes it possible for things to move more swiftly and to have a decision that avoids delays. >> Now what is the special feature of, what are the special features of this court? >> Well, we're specialized in the area of sport. We only deal with sports related matters. In other words, that leaves out anything that might involve trade law, which doesn't have a true direct or indirect link with sports. There are very few examples where we had to declare ourselves incompetent because the subject matter was not part of our target. There's very often, there's almost always a link with sports. That's one of the characteristics. The second one is that we are an Arbitration court, which is recognized by law. This is a form of private justice. We meet out justice in this way. >> Now, the national and international federations, the IOC. Are they involved in some way in the Court of Arbitration for Sport? >> Well, involved? Yes and no. In one sense, they do support financially the CAS, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and this makes it possible for us to ensure that the procedures are cost free for athletes who have a disciplinary issue. So, to facilitate access just as this financial contribution avoids our having to ask athletes and the federations concerned to finance their own arbitration procedures. So, in other words, it is cost free for those who use you. From a discipline point of view, yes, but contractually, no, because we ask the users of the court to finance their own procedures. But the costs are quite reasonable compared with other commercial arbitration facilities. Another way which the, sports are involved is in the composition of the International Council of Arbitration for Sport, which is the umbrella organization of the CAS, which includes emanate persons who are appointed by the IOC. By the international federation, by the national Olympic committees and there eminent persons who are not necessarily directly involved in a leadership function in sport. We have judges for example. We have a number of lawyers specialized in arbitration who do not necessarily have leadership functions within the sports, and they are going to oversee the activities of the CAS. >> Now if someone approaches the court and if the award they do not agree with the award, is there possibility of appealing some of the jurisdiction perhaps? >> Well we hand down awards. They are enforceable and final. They have the same strength of law as a state court. So they are enforceable. By the users of, by the parties in other words who benefit from the award or if it is not accepted, there is an executor procedure. The arbitration award is enforced. It can be implemented by judges in the country concerned. But if there is an appeal or a challenge, to an award. It is possible to appeal the award at the Swiss Federal Court, which is very close to the headquarters of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. That's the only recourse possible, but for very limited reason which are associated with the procedure or the composition of the arbitration court, the right to be heard. These are more associated with the procedure than the substance. >> Now when, so the CAS deals of course with athletes and with federations but in terms of disputes. When does it actually take place? What sort of disputes are there? >> When you're talking about doping, it's very difficult to have statistics. We can say that there are more cases that involve cycling athletics but often it is federations that are looking for cases of doping. So there is more research, more questioning and possibly more positive results and more recourse to the casts. Practically all Olympic sports or even non Olympic sports are actually affected by doping. We have cases where there are arbitration procedures. We have a very broad spectrum of all of the international sports. We have weightlifting, we have swimming, athletics, football, team sports, as well, and winter sports, as well. So the sampling is extremely broad. I wouldn't wish to stress one over any others, to say there are more cases in one than in others. >> Now, what about the classification of cases for doping? What sort of violation would this be? >> Once again, there's a very broad spectrum. Recently we've had many cases that involve dietary supplements, stimulants such as methylhexanamine, which you find in dietary supplements that the athletes sometimes use in a very negligent fashion without finding out about this substance that they are ingesting, so there are some very unpleasant surprises associated with these. Now, even though athletes might provide the name of the substance, It is still true I think that they have an increased level of responsibility. And one would expect from international level athletes that they should be checking what they're ingesting, and that they should be extremely careful when it comes to dietary supplements. Now, It doesn't stop there. There are cases where there's anabolic steroids that are taken. Growth hormones, as well. We've had two or three cases recently. And then you have cases which we call cases that aren't associated with a positive analysis, and these are violations, for example, refusal to submit to a anti doping test, refusal to submit to such a test, and also what we call, no shows, no shows occur when there is an unannounced test. You know how it works, this Adams system, which has to be adhered to by all international level athletes, if you do not indicate where you will be present, what you whereabouts will be at a particular date. And the testing agent comes to the place and doesn't find the athlete. That is a violation as well. >> Now recent changes in the world anti-doping code, the 2015 code, recent changes does it, do you think it will have an effect on the activities of the court orientation for sport and the awards? We're thinking in particular about the fact that the sanctions appear to be more severe and fairly regularly go up to four years. >> Well I think that a lot is expected from the case law of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. But there are going to be changes but they will be I think gentle or slow. Under the former anti-doping code it was possible to have more than two years which was traditional. The CAS has already seen some cases where it went up to two, or even four years of suspension. But now the door is opened a little wider, I think. And it is going to give more margin to the authorities who are sanctioning and to the CAS to be able to have broader margin for applying sanctions. So, I think that things will become a little more rigorous because of the new 2015 code, but here we are in 2015. We havent' had any cases yet that are under the new code. >> Would it leave more margin for appreciation by a judge? >> Well, I think to a certain extent, yes. That's my opinion. But I think that the arbitration courts will have a little more latitude, little more margin to assess the situation because there are some very specific criteria that are in the new code, which will have to be adhered to. >> But the principle of strict liability, in other words, the reversal of the burden of proof, does this principle, is it likely to be affected by the new code? >> Now, again my personal opinion, but I don't think that this principle will be questioned at least not in the near future. It's a rule that has been around for a very long time in fact and that is, of course, in the new anti-doping code. It is always up to the authority which is checking or testing the athlete to provide evidence of doping. Once it has been produced, then there is a presumption of reliability of the laboratory that has carried out the test. And it's always up to the athlete to reverse this burden of proof and to provide whatever elements they might have that might prove that there is no violation of anti-doping rules. So I think that that system is going to continue. However, there might be a lightening, more leniency associated with cases that are less serious. >> Well, if we take a very well known case, which is the case of Alain Baxter who lost his Olympic medal, one of the only Scottish alpine skiers who received a medal, and he was using a Vick's inhaler that he purchased in the United States rather than in the UK. Would there be some change in the jurisprudence in his case? >> Well, in the case of Alain Baxter, I don't think that he will be able to get his medal back. Recover his medal. We will always have the same problem because by taking a substance which was prohibited, he participated in a competition on a particular day with the substance in his body that shouldn't have been there and to make sure that everyone's on equal footing, I think that the disqualification would be maintained. Now he was suspended for three months because of this violation. There might be a change there, perhaps there would be a little more leniency, but once again, it wasn't a very serious case but that might be a example of a change. >> In the new code, the issue of complicity is stressed. Participation in doping activity, is that a say of widening the scope of investigations in such matters? Or is this a trend that we already had in the former code? >> I think that the drafters of the new code are in a position to reply to this than I am because that's a new concept in terms of the implementation of the code. We do feel that there is this willingness on the part of others to widen the circle, shall we say, of those who are presumed to be guilty when there is an assumption that there is doping. In other words, the principle is that it's not the athlete alone who decides to use illegal substances. It's those around him, in other words, professional, amateurs. So It looks like they are looking a little bit beyond the athletes. Now an athlete is not obliged, of course, but often, pressure is brought to bear on an athlete to use privated substances and sometimes those around him, will bring this pressure to bear. Now, we will see in the case law of the CAS whether this contributes something new, but it is different, for sure. >> Now what about the idea of prohibited association? It means now that an athlete is going to have to be very careful about when selecting a doctor, trainer, and so on. Because if there is association with persons who have been punished or sanctioned already, or who are, were involved in a situation, a doping situation, well same answer as earlier, it is incumbent upon an athlete's associate with persons who are above reproach. >> Any athlete who wishes to be advised by a doctor or trainer who has already had some difficulties in terms of doping is actually undergoing a risk, and they need to know that. But again, this is something new, and we'll see what happens in terms of the case law of the CAS. Thank you very much. [MUSIC]
