Following the appeal filed by the British Olympic Association (BOA) against a decision of the World Anti-doping Agency (WADA) to declare the BOA Bye-Law on selection of British athletes for the Olympic Games to be non-compliant with the World Anti-doping Code, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has issued the following decision:

"The Bye-Law is a doping sanction and is therefore not in compliance with the WADA Code. The CAS confirms the view of the WADA Foundation Board as indicated in its Decision. Therefore, the appeal of BOA is rejected, and the Decision of the WADA Foundation Board is confirmed."

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has rendered its decision in the arbitration between the Austrian tennis player Daniel Koellerer and the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP), Women's Tennis Association (WTA), International Tennis Federation (ITF) & Grand Slam Committee. The CAS has confirmed the decision of the Anti- Corruption Hearing Officer (AHO) to rule that Daniel Koellerer be permanently ineligible to participate in any event organised or sanctioned by any of the four tennis governing bodies: ATP, WTA, ITF and Gran Slam Committee. However, the CAS has decided to set aside the fine of $100,000 which had been imposed on the player.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has rendered its decision in the arbitration between the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and the German cyclist Jan Ullrich & Swiss Olympic. The CAS has partially upheld the appeal filed by the UCI and has found Jan Ullrich guilty of a doping offence. As a consequence, Jan Ullrich is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility starting retroactively on 22 August 2011. Furthermore, all results achieved by the athlete on or after 1 May 2005 until his retirement are annulled.

In the arbitration procedure between the European Union of Football Association (UEFA) and Olympique des Alpes SA/FC Sion, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has, as previously announced, published at the end of January 2012 the reasons of its decision rendered on 14 December 2011.

The award, available in English, can be downloaded from the CAS website (www.tas- cas.org/jurisprudence):

http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/5475/5048/0/A ward20FINAL20_2011.01.31.pdf

Among the reasons published, the following issues must be emphasized :

- The CAS stated that it had jurisdiction to rule on this dispute on the basis of the entry form for the UEFA Europa League 2011/2012 signed by the President of FC Sion, and acknowledging the CAS jurisdiction, as well as on the basis of article 61 of the UEFA Statutes which provides also for the exclusive CAS jurisdiction.

- Seven claims have been filed by the UEFA and five of them have been declared inadmissible by the CAS, mainly in the absence of an existing legal interest. In order to determine if UEFA has committed an abuse of a dominant market position in the light of the Swiss Cartel Act, the CAS has examined in particular if UEFA was entitled to review the qualification of the players for the UEFA Europa League following the protest filed by Celtic Glasgow; the CAS has considered that, in accordance with the rules of the Europa League, the UEFA was entitled to proceed to such a review, notwithstanding the fact that the players were qualified at the national level, on the basis of a temporary decision of justice

- The CAS noted that, in any event, the UEFA must be in position to ensure the uniform application of its regulations at the European level in order to guarantee the equality between all clubs participating in its competitions.

- The CAS finally concluded that, with its decision to disqualify FC Sion from the Europa League 2011/2012, the UEFA did not commit an abuse of dominant market position in the light of the Swiss Cartel Act.

- Considering that the Tribunal Cantonal de Vaud had recognised in its judgement of 5 October 2011 that the CAS had jurisdiction to decide the present dispute on the merits, the CAS lifted the provisional measures which had been imposed by the same Tribunal Cantonal of Vaud towards the UEFA.

Kerman & Co LLP merged with Max Bitel Greene LLP on January 1 st 2012, with the combined firm operating under the Kerman and Co. name out of their existing offices in the Strand, Central London. Max Bitel Greene is recognised as being one of the industry’s leading sports and commercial law firms, with over 30 years experience of advising clients in the sports and media industries.

Daniel O’Connell, Managing Partner, Kerman & Co., said: “We are delighted to be able to make this significant announcement, and to welcome Max Bitel Greene into our firm. The two firms share similar values and Nick Bitel, Louise Millington-Roberts and their colleagues are highly regarded by their clients for their commercial expertise - both are recommended in The Legal 500. Sports law is now seen as a distinct branch of the law and MBG has been at the forefront of the development of this discipline, particularly in relation to doping, ticketing and brand protection work.”

Nick Bitel, Senior Partner of Max Bitel Greene, said: “As a well-regarded niche firm, we have been approached on many occasions over the years to join forces with other firms but have never felt that they would allow us to continue to offer the same level of service. Kerman & Co., however, more than meet our expectations in this regard and will continue the tradition we have for professionalism, expertise and client service.”