The case involves an appeal by Johan Bruyneel, a Belgian national and former cycling team manager, against the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) regarding a procedural order issued during arbitration proceedings. The dispute stemmed from allegations of anti-doping rule violations under the UCI Anti-Doping Rules. Bruyneel appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) following Procedural Order No. 2 (PO) issued by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Panel on June 12, 2013. The PO addressed preliminary issues such as jurisdiction, confidentiality, and the statute of limitations but explicitly stated these findings were not final and could be revisited.
The central question before CAS was whether the PO constituted an appealable decision under the USADA Protocol and CAS Code. The CAS panel, composed of Malcolm Holmes Q.C., Georg von Segesser, and Paul George, examined whether the PO was a final, binding decision or merely a procedural ruling. The panel concluded the PO was not an "award" or a "final, partial, interim, or non-final award" because it did not resolve any substantive disputes. Instead, it was a procedural order deferring substantive questions to the final award. Consequently, CAS determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
The PO had tentatively ruled on jurisdiction, confidentiality violations by USADA, and the statute of limitations, emphasizing these findings were subject to change. Notably, the AAA Panel found USADA breached confidentiality obligations by publicly disclosing details about Bruyneel’s alleged doping violations in its decision against Lance Armstrong. However, the panel ruled these disclosures did not compromise the proceedings' fairness or warrant the requested relief. The PO also rejected Bruyneel’s request for an interlocutory appeal to CAS, stating such a decision was beyond the AAA Panel’s authority.
Bruyneel filed his appeal with CAS on August 2, 2013, but USADA objected to CAS jurisdiction on October 8, 2013. After further submissions, the CAS panel was constituted on November 22, 2013, and ultimately dismissed the appeal, affirming the PO was not an appealable decision. The ruling clarified that procedural orders lacking finality and substantive impact do not qualify as appealable awards under the USADA Protocol or CAS rules. The case highlights the distinction between procedural rulings and final decisions in arbitration proceedings.
The document references an analogous case, Inforica Inc. v. CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants Inc., where a procedural order for security for costs was deemed not an "award" because it did not dispose of any substantive issue. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled only decisions determining substantive matters should be termed "awards," while procedural matters are merely orders or directions. Applying this reasoning, CAS concluded the AAA Panel's PO was a provisional view, not an award, and thus CAS lacked jurisdiction.
Ultimately, CAS ruled it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate Bruyneel’s appeal against USADA concerning the AAA's Procedural Order No. 2, dismissing all other motions or requests for relief. The decision underscores the distinction between procedural orders, which govern arbitration conduct, and awards, which resolve substantive disputes. This case serves as a precedent for understanding the limits of appealable decisions in arbitration under the USADA Protocol and CAS Code.