The case involves professional bridge players Fulvio Fantoni and Claudio Nunes, who appealed against sanctions imposed by the European Bridge League (EBL) for allegedly using a prearranged signaling code during the 2014 EBL European Championships. The EBL accused the players of violating Article 73(B)(2) of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, which prohibits exchanging unauthorized information through methods like card orientation. The allegations originated from observations by amateur player Maaijke Mevius and professional player Kit Woosley, who claimed the players' vertical or horizontal card placements signaled hidden high honors or singletons with high accuracy. The EBL formed an Investigation Committee, which presented statistical analyses supporting the allegations. The players denied the accusations and submitted expert reports challenging the methodology and statistical validity of the claims. Experts like Mario Colombo and Jeff Goldsmith argued the classification of card orientations was arbitrary and lacked scientific rigor. Despite these rebuttals, the EBL Disciplinary Committee found the players guilty and imposed sanctions, including a five-year individual ban and a lifetime ban as a pair, along with fines.
The players appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), raising procedural and substantive objections. The CAS panel addressed key legal principles, including the admissibility of evidence, the application of the "tempus regit actum" rule (judging actions based on laws in force at the time), and the standard of proof. The panel emphasized the "comfortable satisfaction" standard, requiring a high level of certainty but not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The EBL relied heavily on statistical evidence, claiming the probability of the observed card placements occurring randomly was astronomically low (1 in 675 quintillion). However, the players' experts criticized the methodology, highlighting flaws such as arbitrary classification of card angles, exclusion of ambiguous data, and circular logic in testing hypotheses.
The majority of the CAS panel found the EBL's evidence insufficient to meet the required standard of proof. They noted inconsistencies in the alleged code, such as diagonal card placements and false positives, which undermined its reliability. The panel also dismissed the EBL's reliance on unrelated sanctions and hearsay accusations. While the decision did not declare the players innocent, it overturned the sanctions due to the EBL's failure to prove the allegations convincingly. The ruling underscored the challenges of proving covert cheating in bridge and the importance of robust evidence in disciplinary proceedings. The CAS panel upheld the appeal, annulling the EBL's decision and dismissing all other motions, leaving open the possibility of future investigations with more reliable data. The case highlights the tension between statistical evidence and methodological rigor in proving misconduct in competitive sports.