The case involves Bulgarian tennis player Aleksandrina Naydenova, who faced sanctions for match-fixing and failure to cooperate under the Tennis Anti-Corruption Program (TACP). The Professional Tennis Integrity Officers (PTIOs) accused her of manipulating match outcomes between 2015 and 2018, supported by evidence such as betting alerts, witness statements, and suspicious conduct. The Tennis Integrity Unit (TIU) initiated investigations after receiving alerts about unusual betting patterns in matches Naydenova played in various countries, including Spain, China, and Portugal. Key evidence included WhatsApp conversations and financial transactions, though Naydenova was never formally charged in related criminal proceedings.
Naydenova was provisionally suspended in December 2019 and later charged with fixing 15 matches and obstructing the investigation by tampering with evidence, such as deleting phone data and withholding requested information. The Anti-Corruption Hearing Officer (AHO) found her guilty of 11 corruption offenses and imposed a lifetime ban and a $150,000 fine. Naydenova appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the sanctions were disproportionate and the evidence inadmissible. She contested the statute of limitations, the standard of proof, and the reliability of witness testimony, including statements from individuals referred to as O. and others.
The CAS panel, comprising Hamid Gharavi, Michele Bernasconi, and Michael Beloff, addressed several legal issues. It ruled that the TACP’s eight-year statute of limitations applied, making the charges timely. The panel upheld the admissibility of evidence, including foreign-language documents and wiretapped conversations, under the TACP’s broad "any reliable means" standard. While the panel confirmed Naydenova’s breaches, it reduced her lifetime ban to 15 years, citing mitigating factors like financial pressures and the absence of prior warnings. The $150,000 fine was upheld.
The panel distinguished between matches where Naydenova deliberately underperformed and those with clear evidence of match-fixing for betting purposes. For instance, in a 2018 match in Wuhan, China, WhatsApp messages revealed prearranged outcomes, while in other cases, betting alerts and her pattern of double faults supported the charges. However, the panel noted investigative delays by the TIU and insufficient evidence for some charges.
Ultimately, the CAS emphasized the need for strict anti-corruption measures while ensuring proportionality in sanctions. The decision balanced deterrence with fairness, acknowledging the challenges of proving match-fixing and the importance of cooperation in investigations. Naydenova’s sanctions were backdated to her provisional suspension date, reflecting time served. The ruling underscores the complexities of maintaining integrity in professional tennis and the careful consideration required in disciplinary proceedings.