The case involves Olegs Penkovskis, a Latvian football player, appealing against sanctions imposed by the Latvian Football Federation (LFF) for alleged match-fixing. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) examined the evidence and legal standards, emphasizing that the burden of proof in match-fixing cases requires a standard of "comfortable satisfaction," higher than a balance of probability but less than beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard accounts for the concealed nature of match-fixing and the seriousness of the allegations. The CAS highlighted that merely identifying suspicious betting patterns or poor performance is insufficient; there must be a clear link between the player and the manipulation, supported by concrete evidence beyond circumstantial indicators like betting anomalies or team performance.
The allegations against Penkovskis stemmed from three matches where his teams exhibited suspicious behavior, including deliberate defensive errors and unusual betting patterns. Reports from the UEFA Betting Fraud Detection System (BFDS) and Sportradar indicated irregular betting activities, suggesting prior knowledge of match outcomes. However, these reports alone did not conclusively prove Penkovskis's involvement. Video analysis and expert reports noted his passive behavior during critical moments, but the CAS found these observations insufficient to establish deliberate misconduct. The LFF's disciplinary bodies relied on these reports to impose a 36-month suspension and disqualification on Penkovskis, which he appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and procedural errors.
The CAS proceedings focused on whether the LFF followed its own regulations and whether the evidence met the required standard of proof. The Sole Arbitrator reviewed match delegate reports, BFDS findings, video analyses, and witness statements but concluded that the LFF failed to provide convincing evidence linking Penkovskis directly to match manipulation. While the BFDS Report indicated Match 3 was manipulated, it did not implicate Penkovskis specifically. The Expert Group's analysis of his actions was deemed inconclusive, and a statement from an opposing player lacked substantiated details. The Arbitrator acknowledged that team captains are often targets for match-fixers but stressed this alone does not prove involvement.
Penkovskis also sought compensation for non-material damages, claiming reputational harm due to the public nature of the allegations. The Arbitrator dismissed this claim, citing a lack of legal basis and evidence demonstrating the extent of the damage. Ultimately, the CAS partially upheld Penkovskis's appeal, overturning the LFF's sanctions due to insufficient evidence but rejecting his claim for damages. The ruling underscores the challenges of proving match-fixing and the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and evidentiary standards in disciplinary actions. The decision reflects CAS's commitment to balancing the fight against corruption with the protection of individuals from unfounded allegations, ensuring the integrity of sports governance.