Proportionality of athlete sanctions - A review of the Nick Lindahl match-fixing case
Published 09 March 2018 By: Kevin Carpenter
In December 2017, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) heard the appeal of Professional Tennis Integrity Officers (PTIOs) v. Nick Lindahl1, concerning the appropriate sanction for a match-fixing charge brought by the PTIOs (who form the Tennis Integrity Unit, TIU) against former professional tennis player, Mr. Nick Lindahl. The case attracted significant media interest, as Mr. Lindahl and his co-conspirators were also subjected to criminal proceedings in Australia. It is also noteworthy for sports lawyers in light of its broader relevance to the issue of proportionality of athlete sanctions.
This article reviews the case, and looks specifically at:
Background to events
Summary of submissions to the CAS
CAS findings and author’s analysis
What was an “appropriate” sanction under the relevant rules?
What matters should properly be taken in to account?
Was the sanction in this case proportionate?
The role fines should play in proportionate sanctioning
The author represented Mr Nick Lindahl in the appeal. Any quotes from the award that are underlined is emphasis added by the author.
Get access to this article and all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport
Already a member?
Articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts
This work was written for and first published on LawInSport.com (unless otherwise stated) and the copyright is owned by LawInSport Ltd. Permission is granted to make digital or hard copies of this work (or part, or abstracts, of it) for personal use provided copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage, and provided that all copies bear this notice and full citation on the first page (which should include the URL, company name (LawInSport), article title, author name, date of the publication and date of use) of any copies made. Copyright for components of this work owned by parties other than LawInSport must be honoured.
- Tags: Anti Corruption | Australia | CAS Code | Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) | Dispute Resolution | Match Fixing | Professional Tennis Integrity Officers (PTIOs) | Tennis | Tennis Integrity Unit (TIU) | Uniform Tennis Anti-Corruption Program (TACP)
- Match-fixing and the potential ‘Matuzalem effect’
- Should we be comfortably satisfied with the standard of proof for match-fixing?
- Punishment & redemption: consistency in sanctions for doping & match-fixing
Kevin is a advisor and member of the editorial board for LawInSport, having previously acted as editor. In his day-to-day work he has two roles: as the Principal for his own consultancy business Captivate Legal & Sports Solutions, and Special Counsel for Sports Integrity at leading global sports technology and data company Genius Sports.