The case involves professional tennis player Guillermo Olaso de la Rica appealing a decision by the Tennis Integrity Unit (TIU) regarding allegations of match-fixing and related violations under the 2010 Tennis Anti-Corruption Program. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) conducted a de novo review, re-examining the entire case, including evidence and procedural aspects. The TIU accused Olaso of accepting an offer to lose a match in 2010, failing to report the approach, and tampering with evidence by deleting messages and destroying a SIM card. The case centered on the admissibility of Skype messages as evidence, with the CAS panel ruling that such messages could be considered valid if the chain of custody for the device storing them was intact. The panel emphasized that while it had full authority to review the case, it would only overturn the disciplinary sanction if it was evidently and grossly disproportionate to the offense.
Olaso had signed agreements in 2010 acknowledging his obligation to comply with the Uniform Tennis Anti-Corruption Program, which prohibits activities like match-fixing and requires players to report suspicious approaches. The TIU initiated an investigation after receiving alerts from a betting operator about unusual betting patterns on matches involving Olaso. Following interviews and evidence collection, the TIU charged Olaso with multiple violations. The CAS panel reviewed the case under Article R57 of its code, allowing for a complete reassessment of the facts and legal issues.
The CAS upheld the principle that disciplinary bodies have discretion in imposing sanctions, and such decisions should only be interfered with if they are clearly excessive. The case highlights the strict enforcement of anti-corruption rules in professional tennis and the CAS's role in ensuring fair adjudication while respecting the original disciplinary process. The decision reinforces the admissibility of digital evidence like Skype messages, provided proper custody protocols are followed, and underscores the importance of maintaining integrity in sports.
Olaso contested the validity of the 2010 Program, arguing he was not properly informed about its contents when he signed the agreement and did not recognize the jurisdiction of the appointed hearing officer, whom he accused of partiality. He also claimed procedural violations, including a failure to inform him of his right to remain silent during interrogations and questioned the admissibility of Skype conversation evidence due to inconsistencies and lack of a proven chain of custody. Olaso argued the case was time-barred under the statute of limitations, as the proceedings exceeded the two-year limit from the discovery of alleged events.
Regarding the match-fixing allegations, Olaso denied deliberately losing a match, stating that while he was tempted by a proposal, he did not follow through and played to win. He also highlighted threats from a criminal organization, which he claimed should mitigate his sanction under Rule E.4 of the 2010 Program. Olaso argued the five-year disqualification was disproportionate and failed to consider his financial hardship. The TIU countered that Olaso agreed to the ATP Rules, including the 2010 Program, which mandated cooperation with investigations and applied Florida law. They asserted that any procedural irregularities were cured by the de novo appeal process.
The Panel found that the initial proceedings did not violate Olaso's rights, as he was informed of his right to legal counsel during interrogations by TIU investigators. The Skype messages exchanged between Olaso and another individual were deemed admissible, as their authenticity was confirmed and Olaso did not dispute their accuracy. The panel also rejected Olaso's argument that the proceedings exceeded the time limit set by the Program, noting that the alleged offenses occurred within the stipulated eight-year period.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Olaso's appeal, upheld the AHO's decision, and rejected all further claims. The ruling affirmed the importance of maintaining fairness in sports and the necessity of enforcing anti-corruption measures strictly. The case underscores the binding nature of contractual agreements in sports governance and the importance of cooperation in anti-corruption investigations.