The case involves Patricio Heras, an Argentine professional tennis player, who appealed a sanction decision issued by the Professional Tennis Integrity Officers (PTIOs) under the 2015 Uniform Tennis Anti-Corruption Program. The PTIOs, acting on behalf of the Tennis Integrity Unit (TIU), found Heras guilty of match-fixing and failing to report corrupt approaches. The initial Violation Decision, issued on July 16, 2018, found Heras guilty of contriving the outcome of a match in September 2015 and failing to report corrupt approaches. Heras did not appeal this decision. A subsequent Sanction Decision on September 3, 2018, imposed a five-year ineligibility period (with two years suspended) and a $25,000 fine. Heras appealed only the Sanction Decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), admitting guilt for failing to report corrupt approaches but denying involvement in match-fixing.
The CAS panel, led by Sole Arbitrator Ken Lalo, addressed several key issues. It determined that the PTIOs, not the TIU, were the proper respondents in the appeal, as they administer the Anti-Corruption Program. The panel ruled that Heras could not challenge the Violation Decision in his appeal against the Sanction Decision, as the time to appeal the former had expired. The panel emphasized that while CAS reviews cases de novo, it should only overturn sanctions if they are "evidently and grossly disproportionate" to the offense, not merely because alternative sanctions might seem preferable.
The case stemmed from allegations that Heras conspired to fix a match in September 2015 after being approached by individuals linked to betting schemes. Evidence included suspicious betting patterns, deleted communications, and testimony from another player, Marco Trungelliti, who reported the corrupt approaches. Heras admitted to receiving corrupt approaches but denied fixing the match. He cooperated by providing his phone for examination, though a WhatsApp conversation with one of the individuals was deleted.
Heras argued that the sanction was disproportionate, citing his injury during the match, lack of direct evidence linking him to match-fixing, and financial hardship due to the ban preventing him from earning income to pay the fine. He requested a reduced penalty of an $5,000 fine and an 18-month ban with eight months served. The PTIOs maintained that the sanction was appropriate given the offense and precedents, urging the Sole Arbitrator to uphold the decision unless it was grossly disproportionate.
The CAS proceedings involved written submissions from both parties, with Heras eventually confirming he was no longer represented by counsel. The Sole Arbitrator deemed a hearing unnecessary and proceeded to review the case. The final award, issued on October 1, 2019, upheld the Sanction Decision, concluding that the penalty was justified based on the evidence and Heras's failure to report the corrupt approach. The panel found the five-year sanction (with two years suspended) proportionate, considering the need for deterrence in anti-corruption measures. The decision reinforces the strict enforcement of integrity rules in professional tennis and the challenges players face in appealing sanctions.
The ruling underscores the importance of maintaining strict sanctions to preserve the sport’s integrity, particularly given tennis’s vulnerability to corruption. The CAS dismissed Heras's appeal, affirming the original sanctions as proportionate to the offenses committed. The case highlights the severe consequences of violating anti-corruption rules in professional tennis and the limited grounds for successful appeals against such sanctions.