BEFORE THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- x UNITEDSTATESANTI-DOPING AGENCY, : : Claimant, : : AAACase Nos. – v. – : : 77 190 0022512 JOHAN BRUYNEEL, PEDRO CELAYALEZAMA : 77 190 0022612 and JOSÉ MARTÍ MARTÍ, : 77 190 0022912 : Respondents. : : : ----------------------------------------------------------------------- x Award We,THEUNDERSIGNEDARBITRATORS,havingbeendesignatedinaccordance withtheUCI Anti-DopingRulesandtheUSADAProtocolfor OlympicandParalympic MovementTesting,andhavingbeendulysworn,andhavingdulyheardtheproofsand allegationsoftheParties,dohereby,AWARD,asfollows: I. Introduction 1. As the only formal anti-doping prosecution to emerge from and proceed to the merits on the now infamous doping activities involving Lance Armstrong (who has now admitted his involvement in widespread, systematic doping in the sport of cycling spanning many years), this case may well be one of the most complex anti-doping prosecutions ever brought, involving multiple parties and numerous witnesses, from different countries (the counsel and arbitrators alone were as diverse as being from Los Angeles, Spokane, New York City, Indianapolis, Colorado Springs, London, and two Spanish cities, and the parties and witnesses spanned multiple jurisdictions and testified from multiple locations), spanning several linear feet ofdocumentary submissions by the parties, and involving multiple in-person and telephonic hearings in London on a variety of complex legal, procedural, jurisdictional, and substantive matters. Based on the evidence presented to it and the arguments and submissions of counsel, the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the United States Anti-Doping Agency (“USADA”) has established multiple doping offenses byeachofthe Respondents and the Panelso finds as more fully set forth below. As a result, the Panel imposes on each Respondent a period ofineligibilityas more fullyand specificallyset forthbelow forthe reasons provided. II. The Parties 2. The Claimant, USADA, is the independent anti-doping agency responsible for Olympic and Paralympic sports in the United States (“Claimant”). USADA is responsible for managing drug testing, investigating anti-doping rule violations, managing results, and adjudicating anti-doping rule violation disputes for participants in the Olympic and Paralympic movements inthe United States. 3. The Respondents in this action are Mr. Johan Bruyneel (“Mr. Bruyneel”), Dr. Pedro Celaya Lezama (“Dr. Celaya”), and Mr. José (“Pepe”) Martí Martí (“Mr. Martí”) (collectively “Respondents”, and individually “Respondent”). All three Respondents worked for the U.S. Postal Service and Discovery Channel professional cycling teams and have beencharged withconduct stemming fromtheir participationonthoseteams. 2 4. Mr. Bruyneel served as a team director for the U.S. Postal Service team between 1999 and 2004 and the DiscoveryChannelteambetween2005 and 2007. 5. Dr. Celaya served a team physician for the U.S. Postal Service team in 1997, 1998, and 2004 and the DiscoveryChannelteambetween2005 and 2007. 6. Mr. José Martí served as a team trainer for the U.S. Postal Service team between 1999 and 2004 and the DiscoveryChannelteambetween2005 and 2007. III. ProceduralHistory A. Notice Letter 7. On June 12, 2012, USADA informed Respondents, Mr. Lance Armstrong and others that a formal action was opened based on evidence that each party had engaged in anti-doping violations under the Union Cycliste Internationale Anti-Doping Rules (“UCI ADR”) from 1998 to 2012, the World Anti-Doping Code (“WADC”) from inception to 2012 and the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing (“USADAProtocol”) frominceptionto 2012. 8. Each Respondent was given notice of the proposed charges including possession of prohibited substances, trafficking in prohibited substances, administration and/or attempted administration of prohibited substances, assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity involving anti-doping rule violations, and aggravating circumstances justifying a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction. 3 9. Further, USADA gave notice that the action was prosecuted as a single consolidated actiondue to allegations ofa doping conspiracyamong the Respondents and team officials, employers, doctors and elite cyclists of the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) and DiscoveryChannelprofessionalcycling teams. 10. The notice letter further informed Respondents that USADA would make a written submission to its Anti-Doping Review Board identifying information relative to the anti-doping violations intended to be charged. B. Charging Letter 11. In a letter dated June 28, 2012 (“the Charging Letter”), Respondents and/or their legal counsel were informed that the USADA Anti-Doping Review Board had met June 25-27, 2012 and determined that there was sufficient evidence of anti-doping rule violations and had recommended that the adjudicationprocess should proceed. 12. In the Charging Letter, USADA stated the charges being made against each Respondent, which had previously been specified in the notice letter ofJune 12, 2012. It also outlined the sanctions being sought, including a lifetime period of ineligibility, disqualification ofcompetitive results obtained on or after the earliest date ofany proven anti-doping rule violation, and costs and fines. The charging letter also notified Respondents of their right to an arbitration hearing before the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) to contest USADA’s actions. Such a hearing would be heard by a three-member arbitration panel as provided under R-11 of the AAA Supplementary 4 Procedures for the Arbitration of Olympic Sport Doping Disputes, as set forth in Annex D ofthe USADAProtocol. 13. On July 9, 2012, Lance Armstrong, a USPS cyclist who had been charged with six anti-doping violations and named as part ofthe charged conspiracy, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court forthe WesternDistrict ofTexas in Austin, Texas against USADA (“the Armstrong Action”). In the Armstrong Action, Mr. Armstrong challenged USADA’s jurisdiction over him and the adequacy of due process afforded to him by AAAarbitrationunder the USADAprotocol. 14. On August 14, 2012, Respondents Messrs. Bruyneel, Celaya and Martí requested a stayofthe AAAproceeding pending resolutionofthe Armstrong Action. 15. On August 20, 2012, the Armstrong Action was dismissed by the U.S. District Court judge, who found that USADA and AAA procedures provided adequate due process. The court referred jurisdictional issues to the duly appointed AAA arbitration panel for resolution.1 1 Amongotherthings,Mr.Armstrongallegedthattherewasnoadequatechargingdocument,noguarantee of a CAS hearing on the merits, no right to cross examine or confront witnesses, no right to impartial arbitration panel, no right to disclosure of exculpatory evidence, no right to disclosure of cooperation or inducement agreements, no right to get investigative witness statements, no right to a full lab analysis or impartial review by experts, noright to judicial review of an arbitration decision bya US court. The US District Court determined, among other things, that, it “declines to assume either the pool of potential arbitrators or theultimatePanelitselfwill unwillingor unabletorender a conscientious decision based on the evidence before it”, continuing that “Armstrong has ample appellateavenues open to him, first to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where he is entitled to de novo review, and then to the courts of Switzerland, as permitted by Swiss law, if he so elects . . . [and the] record shows CAS routinely grants hearingsincasessuchasArmstrong's,andthisCourtdeclinestopresumeitwillbreakwithtraditioninthis particularinstance.” 5 16. On October 9, 2012, the AAA sent notice to all parties of the appointment by the parties of David W. Rivkin, Esq., of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP in New York and London, and Jeffrey G. Benz, Esq., of Benz Law and 4 New Square Barristers in Los Angeles and London, as the parties’ arbitrators and Hon. James Murphy (Ret.), of Spokane, as chair (collectively, “the Panel”). Following submission of Panel disclosures and the expiration of time for objections to the appointments, the Panel appointment process was completedonOctober 23,2012. C. ProceduralMotions and Hearing 17. A preliminary hearing was conducted via teleconference November 12, 2012 for purposes of addressing scheduling and pre-hearing motions. As a result of the preliminary hearing, the Panel issued its Procedural Order No. 1, providing for various proceduralsteps. 18. On December 13, 2012, Mr. Bruyneel and Dr. Celaya submitted pre-hearing motions tothe Panel. OnJanuary25, 2013, USADA filed a briefin oppositionto the pre- hearing motions. OnMarch8, 2013, Mr. Martípresented his positiononthe issues. 19. On March 11, 2013, the parties, with the exception of USADA, convened in person in London and USADA convened via teleconference. At that time, the motions were heard in person by Panelists Rivkin and Benz; Panel Chair Murphy participated telephonically. 6 20. The issues presented at the further preliminary hearing included (1) the jurisdictionofthe Panelto hear USADA’s claims against the Respondents, (2) USADA’s alleged breach of confidentiality owed to Respondents and implications of any alleged breach, (3) whether claims brought by USADA against Respondents were subject to any statute of limitations, and (4) Respondents’ request for an interlocutory appeal of any decision made onthese motions. 21. Mr. Bruyneel was represented by Mr. Mike Morgan of Squire Sanders (UK) LLP and Mr. Adam Lewis, QC of Blackstone Chambers. Dr. Pedro Celaya Lezama was represented by Mr. Jon Pellejero of San Sebastian, Spain. Mr. Pepe Martí Martí was represented byMr. Jesús Morant VidalofAlicante, Spain. 1. Jurisdiction 22. Mr. Bruyneel, the team manager for USPS, argues that neither USADA nor AAA has jurisdiction over him as no arbitration agreement exists between himself and USADA; USADA is not empowered to take steps against Mr. Bruyneel; and there is no legal relationship between Mr. Bruyneel and USADA that gives USADA the right to enforce UCI anti-doping rules against Mr. Bruyneel. Dr. Celaya and Mr. Martí adopted Mr. Bruyneel’s positions onjurisdictionand urgedthe Panelto applythe arguments made byMr. Bruyneelto their objections as well. 23. Following the preliminary hearing on March 11, 2013, the Panel issued Procedural Order No. 2 in response to the four issues raised by Respondents. In that 7 order, the Panel found that Mr. Bruyneel applied for and received a UCI license through his national federation in Belgium every year since 2005. As a license-holder, the UCI ADR therefore apply to him under Article 1. It was further found that he has expressly consented to the rules and regulations ofthe UCI, including the UCI ADR. Article 11 of the UCI ADR provides that where no sample collection is involved and an anti-doping violation is involved which is discovered by a national anti-doping organization involving a license holder who is not a national, resident, license holder or member of a sports organizationofthat nation, resolution ofthe violation shall be administered by and under the rules of that national anti-doping organization. USADA is the anti-doping organization that discovered the alleged anti-doping violations by Mr. Bruyneel. The Panel found that, as a result, jurisdiction exists for USADA to proceed to prosecute the anti-doping violationcharges against Mr. Bruyneel. 24. Dr. Celaya and Mr. Martíare not license holders. Article 18(1) provides that any person who “without being a license holder, participates in a cycling event in any capacitywhatsoever, shall be subject to the anti-doping rules.” Article 1 ofthe UCI ADR states that these rules apply to other persons as provided in Article 18. As evidence showed that Dr. Celaya and Mr. Martíparticipated in cycling events as athlete personnel, the UCI ADR applies to them. 25. Dr. Celaya practiced as a medicaldoctorincycling events. Mr. Martíparticipated as a trainer. The Panel found that since Dr. Celaya and Mr. Martíconsented to UCI ADR 8 by participating in UCI cycling events, they also have consented to the possibility or arbitrationofanti-doping violations under USADAprotocol. 26. These findings on jurisdiction were issued tentatively by the Panel on June 7, 2013 as part of Procedural Order No. 2 (provided in full below) and subject to change following facts deduced at a fullhearing onthe merits inDecember 2013. 2. Confidentiality 27. The Respondents alleged that USADA breached its obligations to keep confidential the facts of this proceeding during its pendency by publishing extensive statements concerning their alleged anti-doping violations in the reasoned decision issued in charges against Lance Armstrong. They argued that the alleged breach amounts to a breachofanyarbitrationagreement that mayexist betweenUSADAand Respondents. 28. While discussing the disclosures at length, and finding that a violationofthe rules had occurred, the Panel found that such disclosures did not prejudice Respondents’ right to a fair hearing orthe neutralityofthe Panel. 3. StatuteofLimitations 29. Respondents urged that Article 368 of the UCI ADR provides for an eight-year statute of limitation on any prosecution for doping violations. Therefore they could not be charged or sanctioned relative to anymatteroccurring eight years prior to the datethat the disciplinary action was initiated by USADA. Thus no charges may be considered priorto June 12, 2004. 9 30. The Panel felt that the issue may be settled by facts established at the full hearing on the merits and withheld ruling on the issue until that time. At the merits hearing, USADA chose to withdraw charges that predate 12 June 2004, except those presented to corroborate acts committedthereafter. 4. Interlocutory Appeal 31. The parties further sought authority from the Panel to allow an interlocutory appealto CASofanydecision made inthe proceduralorder. The Panel found the request beyond the authorityofthe Paneland solelywithin the discretionofCAS. 5. ProceduralOrderNo. 2 32. The pertinent text ofProceduralOrder No.2 is as follows: I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. On November 19, 2012, the members of the Arbitration Panel (the “Panel”) issued Procedural Order No. 1. Procedural Order No. 1 set forth the procedural agenda for the proceedings and confirmed that the Panel would address certain pre-hearing motions (“Pre-Hearing Motions”) bythe parties. The Panel wrote as follows: Respondents have raised issues of confidentiality of these proceedings, both before appointment of the Panel and subsequent thereto, jurisdiction of USADA over the Respondents, Standing of USADA to bring this action over these Claimants and a request for leave to seek interlocutory review of any decision by the Panel on these issues by CAS. Any pre-hearing motions seeking Panel consideration of these issues will be heard January 7, 2013 via teleconference at a time to be determined by the Panel. Motions by Respondents and supporting briefs shall be filed with the Panel by December 10, 2012 with a response due by December 21, 2012. 2. On December 13, 2012, Mr. Bruyneel and Dr. Celaya independently submitted Pre-Hearing Motions to the Panel. 10