BEFORE THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION CdS es horas ; ) ‘Claimant, ) ARBITRAL AWARD peones tc rcmant ¥ ) a } Respondent F WE, THE UNDERSIGNED ARBITRATORS (“Panel”), having been designated by the above-named parties in accordance with the applicable rules, and having duly heard the allegations, proofs and arguments presented in this matter, do hereby find end issue this Award, 1s follows: 1 SUMMARY 1. Claimant, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA"), has alleged that Respondent, Dr. Geert Leinders, committed a number of doping offenses in violation of the ‘Union Cycliste Inernationale Anti-Doping Rules (“UCI ADR”), the World AntiDoping Code (*WADC"), and the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing (USADA Protocol”). Those alleged doping offenses include possession of prohibited substances and/or methods; trafficking of prohibited substances and/or methods, administration and/or attempted administration of prohibited substances and/or methods; and assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity involving anti-doping rule violations. USADA also asserts thatthe alleged doping offenses involve ageravating circumstances justifying a lifetime period of ineligibility.2. For the reasons desribed more filly below, the Panel has determined tha, based onthe evidenes presented tit and the arguments and submissions of counsel, USADA has met its burden of proof and established tothe Panel's confortable satiation tat Dr, Leinders committed each ofthe alleged doping offenses within the applicable sate of imitations 3. Forthe reasons described more lly below, the Panel imposes litetime period of incligibility asthe sanction for Dr. Leinders’ doping offenses u, PARTIES 4. Claimant, USADA, isthe independent anti-doping agency for Olympic movement Sports inthe United States and is responsible for conducting drug testing and adjudicating potential doping offenses pursuant othe USADA Protoea 5. Respondent, Dr. Geert Leinders, served asthe chet team doctor forthe Rabobank professional cycling eam from 1996-2009. Dr. Leinders als served onthe team’s board of sectors from 2004-2009, Dr. Lenders thereafter served as team doctor forthe Team Sky professional cycling team. In 2012, Dr. Leinders” contact with Team Sky was terminated, and sinoe that date he apparently has ceased any participation in the sport of cycling, The charges at issue stem from Dr. Leinders’ involvement with the Rabobank cycling team. TM. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 6 On1uly8, 2013, USADA informed Dr. Leinders by letter that a formal action had ‘en opened based on evidence that he had engaged in anti-doping violations under the UCT ADR (2002-2013), WADC (2003-2013), and the USADA Protocol (2002-2013). That leer gave Respondent notice ofthe proposed charges, specifically, possession of prohibited substances andor methods; rafickng of prohibited substances andlor methods; administration and/or attempted administration of prohibited substances and/or methods; assisting, encouraging,Aiding, abeting, covering up and other complicit involving anti-doping rle violations, and aggravating circumstances justifying a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction 7. Inaleterdated fly 11,2013, Dr Linders counsel at the Belgian lw frm of Van Landuyt & Partners, Mr. Johnny Maeschalel and Mr. Kristof De Saedeleer, acinowledged recelpt of USADA’S July 8, 2013 letter, and admitted that Dr. Leinders previously “was working for aDutch cycling team (Rabobank) witha Belgian license 8 Imaleter dated July 12, 2013 (the Charging Lee”), Dr Lenders was informed that USADA’s AntiDoping Review Board had determined that there was sulicent evidence of| anti-doping rule violations and recommended tht the adjudication process proceed onthe following charges (2) _ Possession of probibited substances and/or methods including, EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, insulin, DHEA, LH and corticosteroids under WADC 2.6 (2003-present), UCI ADR 135 (2001-2004), UCI ADR 15.6 (2008-2008) and UCI ADR 21.6 (2009-present), (©) __ Tracking of EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, insulin, LH and corticosteroids under WADC 2.7 (2003-present), UCI ADR 3, 135 (2001-2004), UCI ADR 15.7 (2005-2008), UCT ADR 21.7 (2009-present); (©)___ Administration and/or attempted administration of EPO, blood transfusions testosterone, insulin, DHEA, LH and corticosteroids uncer WADC 2.8 (2003-present), UCI 3, 133 (2001-2004), UCI ADR 15.8 (2005-2008), UC ‘ADR 21.8 (2009-present), (@) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and othe: complicity involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violations under WADC 2.8 (2003-present), UCI ADR 3, 133 (2901-2004), UCT ADR 15.8 (2005-2008), UCT ADR 21.8 (2009-present), and (©) _Agaravaing circumstances justifying a period of inlay rete then the standard sanction under WADC 10.6 (2009-present) and UCI ADR 305 (2009-present)9. ‘The Charging Letter also stated that USADA was seeking a lifetime period of ineligibility as sanction, and notified Dr. Leinders that he had the right to an arbitration hearing before the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) to contest USADA’s charges and proposed sanction 10. By letter dated July 26, 2013, Dr. Leinders’ counsel informed USADA that their “client chooses to contest USADA’s proposed sanction” and “elects to proceed toa hearing.” ‘That letter again confirmed that Dr. Leinders “worked with a Belgian license for a Dutch cycling team.” 11, USADA transmitted Dr. Leinders’ request to the AAA, and this Panel was appointed on February 24, 2014, 12, Apreliminary conference was scheduled for April 3, 2014. On April2, however, Mr. Maeschalc informed the AAA that his law firm “doesn’t have any mandate to represent Mr. Linders in the United States of America,” and that “a personal invitation of Mr. Leinders seems 4 legal necessity and he didn’t sign a convention to arbitrage (sic)." 13. Atthe Panel's request, USADA, by letter dated April 1, 2014, requested that Mr. Maeschalck clarify whether Dr. Leinders was withdrawing his request for a hearing before an AAA arbitration panel 14. On April 18, Mr. Maeschalck responded that he could not “give a declaration on behalf of Dr. Leinders to stop or to continue the procedure” because “Dr. Leinders didnot give us any mandate to represent him in the United States of America,” 15. On May 6, 2014, USADA submitted a letter to the Panel requesting that the Panel Schedule this matter for hearing because “neither Mr. Maeschalek nor Dr. Leinders tave‘withdrawn the request for arbitration previously filed by Dr. Leinders’ attorneys on July 26, 2013." 16. On May 23, 2014, the Panel determined that good cause existed to extend the hearing date and ordered thatthe hearing be held on or before August 15, 2014 17, ‘The Panel conducted a second preliminary conference on June 18, 2014, ‘Although notice of the conference was provided by email to Mr. Maeschalck, neither Dr. Linders nor any representative acting on his behalf participated inthe conference. 18, Given the failure of Dr. Leinders (or any representative) to appear, USADA, at the Pane!’s request, contacted Mr. Maeschalck by letter dated June 19, 2014, USADA requested that Mr. Maeschalck forward to the AAA Dr. Leinders’ direct contact information, and stated that until such information was provided, USADA would continue to forward all documents in this matter to Mr. Maeschalck 19. On June 30, 2014, having received no response from Mr. Maeschalck, the Panel issued a Scheduling Order sting the hearing for August 11-12, 2014, in Washington, DC! ‘The Scheduling Order stated Pursuant to Rule 26 of the American Arbitration Association Supplementary Procedures forthe Arbitration of Anti-Doping Rule Violations, this arbitration may proceed in the absence of Dr. Leinders. Should Dr. Leinders wish to participate in the hearing, he should notify the AAA (c/o Jen Nilmeier, Manager of ADR Services, American Arbitration Association, Telephone: $59-490- 1862, Email: JenNilmeier@adr org) of USADA whether he intends to.do so in person, by teleconference oF by videoconference, 20. The Scheduling Order directed that “[sJhould Dr. Leinders intend to submit any documentary evidence in his defense, he must do so in accordance with the schedule set forth " OnJuly 7, 2014, the Panel issued a Revised Scheduling Order rescheduling, at USADA’s request the Dearing for August 12-13, 2014below.” The Scheduling Order set an August 4, 2014 deadline for pre-hearing submissions, and specifically requested that pre-hearing submissions inch, “a statement addressing USADA's juristition to pursue, and this Panes authority to impose, a sanction against Dr. Leindes,” and “a.tatement ofthe facts and legal authorities supporting the party's position on the merits” 21, On August 4, 2014, USADA submited to the Pane! its pre-hearing bret, exhbis and witness disclosures (including a detailed summary ofthe expected testimony of each ofits witnesses) and provided copies to Mr, Maeschalck, Dr. Leinders didnot submit a pre-hearing bwiefor any evidence in his defense 22, On August 4, 2014, USADA also sent a letter to Mr. Maeschalck requesting that Dr Leinders testify in person or telephonically atthe hearing, and further stated In the event that Dr. Leinders fails to appear in person or telephonically at the hearing in order to answer questions from USADA or the hearing panel, please be advised that USADA will request that the hearing panel draw an adverse inference against Dr Linders based on his refusal to appear and to answer as provided 23, By letter dated August 8, 2014, Mr. Maeschalck responded to USADA’s request [As mentioned in previous correspondence Dr. Leinders did not sive us any mandate to represent him in the United States of ‘America. In Belgium a lawyer needs a mandate for each specific ‘Therefore a personal notification to Dr. Leinders is a necessity to continue any procedure. ‘Therefore I can’t accept your request through me that Dr, Leinders appear at any upcoming hearing, either in person or telephonically. You have to send your correspondence directly towards Dr. Leinders Furthermore 1 can't forward any contact information for Dr Leinders as this is prohibited by the Belgian deontological code and the privacy rules. Dr. Leinders is our client in a Belgian caseand by no means, I can give such confidential information obtained because of a procedure to any third party without any legal justification If you want to obtain such information you will have to ask public authorities in Belgium to give such information > 24, The hearing was held in Washington, D.C. on August 12,2014. Neither Dr Leinders nor any representative on his behalf participated in the hearing 25. tthe outset ofthe hearing, the Chair ofthe Panel after setting forth the procedural history ofthis mate, stated for the record that “[gliven that Mr. Maeschale’s law fm initiated this arbietion on Dr. Lenders’ behalf and repeatedly refered to Dr. Lenders as his client init intial correspondence with USADA, the Pane finds its service of papers and notices on Dr. Leinders through Mr. Maeschalck’s law firm is fir, reasonable and appropriate” under Rule 36 ofthe AAA Supplementary Procedures for the Arbitration of Anti-Doping Rule Violations. Further, “t]he Panel concludes that pursuant to Rule 26 that Dr. Leinders has been provided due notice ofthis abiteation andthe Panel intends to proceed in his absence.” 26, The Panel received imo evidence all exhibits tendered by USADA and stated tht it would give thse exhibits such weight as it deemed appropriate after hearing al the evidence 27. Atte hearing, USADA presented lve testimony, by means of videoconference, ofthe following witnesses: Michael Rasmussen, Levi Laipheimer, Jack Robertson, Steven Teitler, Dr. Yorck Olaf Schumacher and Dr. Larry Bowers 2 ‘The Panel notes that Mr, Maeschalck did not assert that Belgian law would in any way preven him fom forwarding to Dr. Leiners, who appaently remains hi lint i other matter, ll communications in this matter that have been sent by USADA and the PanelIV. TESTIMONY PRESENTED AT THE HEARING” A. MICHAEL RASMUSSEN 28. Michael Rasmussen provided sworn testimony on behalf of USADA pursuant to 8 cooperation agreement he entered into on January 25, 2013, In tha agreement, Mr. Rasmussen scmitted to using banned performance enhancing substances and methods including EPO, testosterone, blood transfusions and cortisone fom 1998 tthe dat ofthe agreement, Pursuant tothe agreement, Mr Rasmussen undertook o provide tnuful testimony regarding al ani- oping rule violations commited by other cyclists, team directors, managers, doctors and/or ‘other team personnel, of which he has knowledge, in exchange for 875% reduction of what otherwise would have been an eight-year period of ineligibility for his admited a violations 29. Mr. Rasmussen was a professional eyclist from 2001-2013, riding for CSC- Tiscali (2001-2003), Rabobank (2003-2007), Tecos de la Universidad Autonoma de Guadalaiara (2009), Miche (2010), and Christina Watches-Onfone (2011-2013). 30, Mr Rasmussen testified that he was approached to join Rabobank in 2002 atthe ‘Tour of Lombardy. Mr. Rasmussen described a conversation he hed with Rabobank representatives Theo De Rooij and Dr. Lenders in which they discussed Rasmussen's withdrawal from a ace because ofa high hematocrit level caused by EPO use. De Roo told Rasmussen tat such a situation “would not happen on Rabobank because they would take good care of [him]; “alsa team they would make sure that it would not happen and De. Leinders > In connection wit ts post-bearing submissions, USADA has submitted a Motion for Pane to Designate the Kevised Transcript as the Oficial Kecord ofthe Proceedings. USADA'S motion i hereby GRANTED, and the Panel designates the revised transcript as theofficial record ofthe August 12,2014 hearingbeing the main [person] responsible forthe medical team he would have been the one taking care ofthat problem.” Rasmussen testified tat Rabobank was aware he was using EPO “and it was ‘ot grounds for any concern.” 31, Mr Rasmussen joined Rabobank in January 2003. 32, 1n 2003, Mr. Rasmussen discused the use of EPO and other performance enhancing drug with Dr, Leinders, including quantities to take and when to take them to avoid detection during doping control texts 33. Mr Rasmussen testified that Dr Leinders assisted hm with the use of insulin {om 2003-2008. Rasmussen testified that Dr. Lenders kept insulin on the teem bus during the 2003 Vuela a Expata and the 2004 and 2005 Tours de France, and while Lenders was concemed about binging insulin into France, one of Rabobank’s public relations managers was abet “[so, he fl that he could justify having tin the bus” Rasmussen stated that approximately 8-10 nits of insulin were delivered to him ina syringe each night before diner during those aces, and that Dr. Lenders specifically discussed with him the rik of diabetic shock associated with inulin use 34, After the 2008 Vuelta, Dr. Leinders and Me. Rasmussen discussed the possiilty of Rasmussen receiving a homologous blood transfson from a family member, Rasmussen tested that Dr, Leinders gave him an academic article on homologous blood transfusions (ubmied as Exhibit 1) and told him that Michal Booger, another Rabobank cyclist, had received such a transfusion from his brother during the 2002 Tour de France.35. In 2004, Dr. Leinders extracted a sample of Mr, Rasmussen's father's blood for purposes of determining whether he could serve as a donor for transfusions.* The test revealed that Rasmussen's father’s blood was not compatible so they did not proceed withthe transfusion 36, Instead, Mr. Rasmussen testified that he proceeded with an autologous blood transfusion, ie. the process of having his own blood withdrawn for later e-infusion into his body. Rasmussen stated that he had his blood extracted in June 2004, courieed from his home in Italy to Dr. Leinders in Belgium, and re-infused by Dr. Leindrs on the evening ofthe second stage of the Tour de France in July of 2006, 37. After the 2004 Tour de France, Rasmussen testified that teammate Michael Boogerd tod him that Dr. Leinders ha advised Boogerd to take 4000 units of EPO two times/day fortwo days to recover from the Tour de France in preparation forthe Classic Sebastian and Olympic Games which followed shorty thereafter. 38, Mr. Rasmussen testified that prio tothe 2005 Tour de France he again had blood ‘withdrawn and courered to Dr. Leinders in Germany for reinfusion during the Tour. Mi ‘Rasmussen confirmed that his normal hematocrit level is approximately 39 or 40, and that his hematocrit level of 46 in July of 2005, as reflected in Exhibit 37, was a result of the blood transfsion 39, Mr Rasmussen state that it “was deftly (his) impresson” that other Rabobank riders were also receiving blood transfusions from Dr. Leinders at the 2005 Tour de France * USADA has submited the affidavit of Fis Johansen, Senior Consultant for Anti-Doping Denmark, sttesng that during a November 3, 2013 television interview, Fina Rasmussen, Michacl Rasmussen's ‘ther confirmed that he had met with Dr, Leindes who explained the process for a homologous blood ‘uansfsion, ie. withdravsing blood from Finn Rasmussen ahd later infusing it ito Michael Rasmussen Johansen also atterts that during the interviews, Fina Rasmussen stated that Dr. Lenders had told him tht ‘homologous blo transfusion “was common and not dangerous.”‘because Dr. Leindrs had told Rasmussen that “he had avery busy night and had other clients to take care of” Me. Rasmussen firther stated that he later learned that Sten Matschiner, an individual associated with the Human Plasma clinic in Austria, had brought blood bags tothe 2008 Tour de France fr use by cyclists Michael Boogerd and Denis Menchov.* 40. Mr- Rasmussen tested that on the first rest day of the 200 Tour de France, UCI informed Rabobank that Rasmussen's doping contol text had shown a very low reticulocyte count, suggesting improper blood manipulation through blood transfusions, and tht Dr. Leinders hhad met with Mario Zorzol, chief of the UCI medical commission, to discuss the issue. After his meting wth Zorzl, Dr. Leinders told Rasmussen that “Rabobank was 8 team that had “butter on its head. meaning tht al the problems, doping related problems the eam had, ‘would slide off And he called me now the most protected ier inthe race.” 41. Mr Rasmussen also testified that later during the 2005 Tour, Dr. Leinders pave him a subcutaneous injection that increased his luteinizing hormone ("LH") level. Rasmussen testified that a random doping control tet reflected that his LH value after the injection was approximately 20X higher than it had been one week earlier, as reflected in Exhibit 44 42, Mr Rasmussen further tested that he spoke to Dr. Leinders after the 2005 Tour de France about receiving additonal assistance with blood transfusions, Dr. Lenders suggested that Rasmussen contact Michael Boogerd abou! the Human Plasma clinic because the clinic had the capabilities to extract mukiple blood bags and store those bags for extended periods of time before re-infusion, An investigation of the Human Plasma clinic conducted by the Public Prosecutor's Office of Vienna revealed thatthe Human Plasma clinic began offering blood doping services to athletes beginning in 200 at the request of Walter Mayer, an Austrian cross-country skiing caach, See Exhibit 5643. Mr. Rasmussen testified that he visited the Human Plasme clinic four times from late 2005-early 2006 to have blood extracted and stored, Rasmussen stated that once he was connected to the Human Plasma clinic through Michael Boogerd, “Dr, Leinders, he was ‘informed occasionally when I had been there but he was not directly involved in the planning,” 44, Mr. Rasmussen testified that in either 2004 or 2008, Dr. Leinders told him that Mario Zorzoli recommended that Leinders give Rabobank riders DHEA because “all the other teams are doing it as well” Rasmussen further testified that up until the 2005 Tour of Germany, Dr. Leinders periodically provided him with DHEA. 45. Mr, Rasmussen testified that he had two blood bags delivered to him by Stefan Matschiner from the Human Plasma clinic during the 2006 Tour de France, and that Dr. Van Manigem, another doctor for team Rabobank, was aware Rasmussen was using blood bags during the Tour, Rasmussen further stated that while Dr. Leinders was not present atthe 2006 Tour, he assumed Dr. Leinders knew he was using blood bags because Dr. Van Mantgem and Dr, Leinders were in daily contact. 46, Mr. Rasmussen explained that when the Human Plasma clinic ceased its involvement in the blood doping business, he, slong with Matschiner ard two other athletes, purchased the clinic's blood transfusion equipment. Rasmussen testified that he informed Dr. Leinders ofthe purchase. 47. ‘Mr. Rasmussen stated that during the 2007 Giro d’talia and in preparation forthe 2007 Tour de France, Dr. Leinders, at Rasmussen's request, used Rabobank’s Sysmex machine, the same machine used by UCT for doping control tests, to analyze the impact of Rasmussen infusing two blood bags during a stage race. R48. During the 2007 Tour de France, Rasmussen had two blood bags infused by Matschiner under the supervision of Dr. Van Mantgem. Dr. Leinders was not present during the 2007 Tour de France, and Rasmussen testified that Leinders “was not directly or indirectly involved in any of the transfusions in 2007. He knew that they would take place but that was about it™ 49. Mr. Rasmussen also testified that during his entre tenure with Rabobank, Dr. Leinders and other team doctors provided him with medical centficates for contsone (see, €, Exhibit 42), which they administered through intramuscular injection, although he had no legitimate medical need for cortisone, 50, Mr. Rasmussen further stated that throughout his time on Rabotank, the Rabobank doctors would provide him and other riders with testosterone pill, and that Dr. LLeinders had told Rasmussen that he had the pills made ata pharmacy in Belgium for the Rabobank team. Rasmussen further stated that Dr. Leinders kept the pills in a canister labelled ‘A-Zinc, a common vitamin in Holland, to prevent detection. B. LEVILEIPHEIMER SI. Levi Leipheimer provided sworn testimony on behalf of USADA pursuant to @ cooperation agreement he entered into on May 31, 2012. In that agreement, Mr. Leipheimer admitted to anti-doping rule violations for his use of banned performance enhancing substances and methods over a period of more than eight years. Pursuant to the agreement, Mr. Leipheimer undertook to provide trthful testimony regarding all anti-doping rule violations committed by Mr. Rasmussen further clarified that forthe 2007 Tour de France, "he had made an agreement with ‘Jean-Paul Van Mantgem that he could bring approximately ten half iter bags of saline that I could have injected inthe morning of the stages to keep the blood values stable forthe UCI tests” but “hat had nothing todo with Dr. Leinders.”other cyclists, team directors, managers, doctors and/or other team personnel, of which he has knowledge, in exchange fora 75% reduction of what otherwise would have been a two-year period of ineligibility. USADA also submited Mr. Leipheimer’s sworn afidavit from a prior proceeding 52. Mr. Leipheimer was a professional cyclist fom 1997-2012, riding for Rabobank from January 2002-August 2004 53. Mr. Leipheimer testified that the first date on which he told any anti-doping organization of Dr. Leinders’ involvement in doping was on June 22,2012, during an interview with USADA in connection withthe U.S, Postal Service eam investigation. 54. Me Leipheimer testified that during hs first tring camp with Rabobank in January 2002 Dr. Lenders asked about his experience wih performance enhancing drugs, Mr. Leiphsimer told Dr, Leinders that he previously had used EPO and testosterone 58. In preparation forthe 2002 Tour de France, Mr. Leipheimer discussed and planned his use of EPO with Dr. Leinders. 56, Mr Leipheimer tested that during the 2002 Tour, Dr. Leinders provided him with tstosterone/A-Zine tablets as well as cortisone for which he had no legitimate medical need. 57. Similarly, in preparation forthe 2003 Tour de France, Mr. Leipheimer discussed and planned his use of EPO with Dr. Leinders, Me, Leipheimer was injured onthe first day, however, and thus dd not complete the race. 58. Mr. Leipheimer further testified tat prior othe 2003 Vueta a Espata, Dr Leinders suggested that he receive a homologous blood transfusion fom his brother. After a ‘ood test confirmed that Mr Leipheimer’sand his brother's blood types matched, Dr, Leinders performed the blood transfusion for Mr. Leipheimer, Mr. Leipheimer testified that Dr. Leinders 4advised against additional blood transfusions in 2004 because WADA had developed atest for detecting homologous blood transfusions. 59, Mr Leipheimer also testified that prior to and/or during the 2003 Vuelta a Espana, he used EPO and testosteronelA-Zine. 00, Mr. Lespheimer tested that n 2004 he purchased KPO from Dr, Leinders, but could not recall exactly when in 2004 that transaction occurred. Mr. Leipheimer further testified that he used the EPO under Dr. Leinders’ supervision up until five days bsfore the Tour de France, which began on July 3, 2004, 61. Mr Leipheimer stated that Dr. Leinders also provided him with testosterone/A- Zinc during the 2004 Tour de France C. JACK ROBERTSON 62. Mr. Robertson, chief investigative officer for WADA, testified that he was present at a March 22, 2013 interview of Stefan Matschiner conducted jointly by WADA, USADA and the Netherlands Anti-Doping Agency (“NAD”), and USADA has submitted his notes from that imerview with its post-hearing submissions.” According to Mr. Robertson, the information provided by Mr. Matschiner atthe interview was consistent with police reports WADA had received regarding the Human Plasma clinic, as well asthe testimony Michael Rasmussen had provided to WADA. 63, Atte interview, Matschiner stated that he frst became involved with the Human Plasma clini in 2004 through Walter Mayer, an Austrian cross-country sti coach who organized ” Mr. Matschiner previously had cooperated in the investigation of Dr. Leindes, but was mo longer cooperating atthe ime ofthe hearng and declined to testy. 1sloping activities for athletes atthe Human Plasma clinic, By 2005, Matchiner took ove from ‘Mayer as Human Plasma’s primary point person for coordinating doping operations 64, According to Matschinr, Rabobank cyclists were fist putin contact withthe ‘Human Plasma clinic through Michael Boogerd who requested tat Denis Menchov, Berard Koll and Michael Rasmussen be given accesso the clinics blood doping facilities 68. Matschiner told Roberson that ether Walter Mayer or Michael Boogerd had told him that Dr. Leinders had on at last one occasion gone tothe Human Plas clinic to oversee the blood withdrawal of Rabobank athletes. Matschiner also claimed “it was Leinders’s responsibilty to determine when thet blood needed tobe re-infused during the competition.” 66, Matschiner told Roberson that he delivered two blood bags to Dr. Leinders during the 2005 Tour de France, one for Michsel Boogerd and ove for Denis Menchov. Dr Leinders pai Matschiner $00€ each forthe blood bags, but took only one ofthe bags and sent the other back tothe Human Plasma cine with Matschiner. D. STEVEN TEITLER 67. Me Teitlr, manager of legal affairs for NAD, tested tat UCT had provided him withthe anonymous results of Rabobank riders’ blood tests from 1997-2008, and that he had discussed those results with Mario Zorzli. During those discussions Zorzli confirmed that ‘hen a bod test reflected a suspicious result, UCI would contat a Rabobank team doctor, sith Dr Lenders or another doctor, to discuss the potential cause ofthe result, Zorol told ‘Teiler that UCI kept in touch wih eam doctors so that “riers and staff would have te idea that UCT was basically on top of them and they had tobe careful with what they would doin terms of doping.”68, Mr. Teitler testified that during NAD's 2013 cycling investigation, seven cyclists, including Michael Rasmussen and Levi Leipheimer, and one athlete support personnel interviewed by NAD identified Dr. Leinders as involved with doping. Mr. Teitlr testified that ‘those individuals provided the following information® ® O} © @ © Former Rabobank cyclist Danny Nelissen stated that Dr. Leinders provided and injected him with EPO in 1996-1997 Rider 1 stated that in 2000, 2002 and 2008, ona total of four occasions, Dr. Linders provided Rider 1 with EPO which Rider 1 paid forin cash” On «ach occasion, Dr. Leinders would instruct Rider 1 how to use the EPO, ‘wen to seit, which dosage to use and ow to avoid detection. Ricer 1 further stated that when he frst approached Dr. Leindes about doping, Dr. Linders told Rider I he would not discuss doping at tat ime, that Rider | fist had to discover how good he was without doping, and tha they could discuss doping a a ater date Rider 2 stated that in 2001, Dr. Leinders had a meeting with all Rabobank riders to discuss the new EPO test. Rider 2 further stated that Dr. Leinders told the riders that they needed to keep their hematocrit levels below 50, and that he understood Dr. Leinders’ purpose as instructing riders how to avoid getting caught for using EPO. Rider 2 believed his contract with Rabobank was nol renewed because he refused to take EPO, Rider 3 stated that in 1997-1998, Dr. Leinders instructed him to take salt tablets to reduce his naturally high hematocrit level. Rider 3 aso stated that Dr. Leinders provided him with a centrifuge to monitor his hematocrit level. Rider 3 believed that Dr. Leinders thought he was a risk tothe team because, given fis naturally high hematoent, if he used EPO he would test positive Rider 4 stated that when he joined Rabobank in 1996, he told Dr. Leinders| he was using EPO, growth hormone and corticosteroids, and Dr. Leinders| told him he could continue to use those substances. Rider 4 did not recall ‘whether Dr. Leinders ever provided him with any prohibited substacces, but di recall having many discussions about doping with Dr. Leindsrs, including what to use, how and when. Rider 4 also stated that from 1996 Because Michael Rasmussen and Levi Leipheimer testified directly in this proceeding, Me. Tei did not discuss the details ofthe information they ad provide to him. * A.mumber of individuals provided information to NAD on the condition of anonymity, and thus were ientfed for purposes of tis proceeding as “Rider 1", “Rider 2, etc1997, Dr. Leinders explained to him how blood doping worked, referred Rider 4 toa Netherlands doctor who could asist wth blood doping, and explained to Rider 4 when to have blood withdrawn and re-infused. (Athlete Support Personnel 1 stated that Dr. Linders provided athletes With testosterone disguised as A-Zinc food supplements sometime between 2005 and 2008 ©. Mr Teilrtsitied tht NAD's investigation evidenced tht “Dr. Linders was ‘very active in terms of doping. He had many discussions and regulr discussions with riders shout doping... Soe discussed it, doping, I mean he provided doping, He advise riders What ose, wien to use, ow to use and he advised riders on how to avoid getting caught. He ‘would assist in setting up a way to engage in blood doping or even assist them to engage in blood doping.” Mr. Teitler described Dr. Leinders as “the linchpin in terms of doping on team Rabobank.” 70. Mr. Teitler described the levels of doping activity that occured on the Rabobank team, For young riders, Dr. Linders would tell them they should not dope immediatly, but instead ride without doping to determine ther natural ability, while leaving open the possiblity for doping in the future. For more experienced riders, Dr, Leinders would either approve doping for riders who had independent accesso prohibited substances, or for those without acoes, the riders would pay Dr. Leinders to provide them with prohibited substances. Finally, forthe elite rand tour riders, Dr. Leinders would provide thos riders with probiited substances and asist them in accessing advanced doping programs. ‘7M Teter testified that he had conversations with Dr. Leinders’ counsel in 2013 regarding a potential assistance agreement in an efor to gain information about Rabobank team Asestrs Tan Ras, Theo De Rosi and Erik Breukink, as well as information about sponsor Rabobank, but no agreement was reached, 18FE, DR. YORCK OLAF SCHUMACHER 72. Dr. Schumacher specializes inthe fields of internal and sports medicine and was a cyeling team physician for approximately ten years. Dr. Schumacher also was involved in the evelopment ofthe athlete biological passport 73. Dr, Schumacher testified regarding the expert report he submitted to the Panel (Exhibit 59) analyzing the anonymous results of Rabobank riders’ blood tests provided by UCL for the time period from 1997-2008, and comparing it to a control group. 74, Dr. Schumacher explained that during EPO administration, reticulocyte values will be high, whereas once EPO administration has ceased reticulocytes will be low." Dr. Schumacher further explained that when blood is withdrawn for an autologous blood transfusion, reticulocytes willbe high; once the blood is re-infused, reticulocytes will be low. 75. Dr. Schumacher's analysis revealed that the blood data ofthe Rabobank group had a broader distribution and more extreme/abnormal reticulocyte values (both high and low) than the control group. Dr. Schumacher testified that Rabobank’s data reflected more abnormally high reticulocyte values prior to introduction of the EPO test in 2002, and more abnormally low reticulocyte values after introduction of the EPO tes, suggesting that Rabobank cyclists adjusted the timing oftheir EPO use—altering the pattern of administration from during competition to before competition—to avoid detection under the new test, 76. Dr. Schumacher further testified that a comparison of Rabobank’s andthe control sroup's OFF scores, a metric based on both reticulocytes and hemoglobin concentration, ® Reticulocyes are non-mature red blood cells and reticulocyte values indicate whether the bone marrow is producing new red blood cells. According to Dr. Schumacher, EPO administration simulates the production af new red blod cells and thus reticulocyte values are high during EPO use. Given the Abundance of red blood cells in an athletes system from EPO us, the bone marrow will cease producing ‘ew red blood eels afer EPO use, thus resling in & low reticulocyte valuereflected similar resus, with Rabobank having signiicantly mote abnormal OFF scores than the contol group 77. Dr Schumacher testified that while he would expect approximately 1 in 1000, lbnormal semples absent blood doping, during the 2006 and 2007 Tours de France, the Rabobank team-consising of nine riders por year—had several abnormal samples, suggesting blood manipulation. 78. De. Schumacher concluded that the Rabobank blood dats reflected a significant ‘numberof abnormalities characteristic of EPO use and blood transfusions, and that biood transfusions, because of their complex nature might have involved skilled help FDR LARRY BOWERS 79. Dr. Bowers, Chief Science Officer at USADA, has been employed inthe area of| anti-doping for approximately 2 years 80. Dr, Bowers testified regarding the performance enhancing effect of EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, concosteroids, insulin and LH. Dr. Bowers further testified regarding the common methods of administration and available testing methods for detection of those substances, Dr. Bowers also described the significant and potentially serious health sks associated with use ofthe aforementioned substances without legitimate medical need. 81, Specifically, Dr. Bowers explained that EPO “increases red blod cell mass and the more dense he blood becomes the harder it isto pump it” Asa result, EPO we increases the “risks of swoke” and “risks associated with cardiac function.” 82. Dr. Bowers testified that blood transfusions crete the risk of“wansmiting some kind ‘of an infection that could potentially be fatal” Moreover, if the transfused blood does sot match the athlete's blood the athlete risks a “blod rection” potentially resting in “kidney file and other things ifit's a large enough problem.” Dr. Bowers explained that “there are all kinds of ether 0complications that could occur [ffom blood transfusions] mainly related to infections but significant risks to re-infusing blood that hasn't been handled appropriately.” 83, Dr Bowers stated that the use of exogenous testosterone can “increasfe] clotting that can occur in the legs," “cause cardiovascular issues” “increase [the] isk of heat attack” by diminishing god cholesterol, and be “the cause of or consistent with development of prosaic 84, Inaddition, Dr. Bowers explained that the nontherapeutic we of corticosteroids, ‘which suppres the immune system, for repeated or sustained periods of time "could fsiltae” Illes, increase the rik of bone facture, and reduce the “normal responsiveness to the things that Should happen when [one's] body is expose to ses {and that] can have very, very serous effects” According to Dr. Bowers, “you cant just take corticosteroids for a while and then suddenly stop because that can cause some serous medical side effets.” 85. Dr. Bowers also testified that intravenously administered insulin can “ease. precipitous drop in your blood glucose, which could put you into a dabei coma” resulting infos ‘of consciousness and possibly death. 86. Dr. Bowers further testified that the nontherapeutic ute of LH increases tesosterone levels and thsi associated with the same adverse health eects caused by use of exogenous testosterone, a described above 87. Finally, Dr Bowerstesified that EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids, insulin and LH have been on WADA’ list of prohibited substances and methods for at least the past decade." Comicosteroids (a/k/a glucoconticosteroids, which Dr. Bowers acknowledged are substances that have legitimate uses, re designated as “specified subsance[s" under the WADC.. "Specified substances” are those “particularly susceptible to unintentional anti-doping rules violations because of ther general availablity in medicinal products or which are les likely tobe successfully abused as doping agents.” (eonap aJURISDICTION AND RESULTS MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBIL 88, Dr. Leinders’ counsel acknowledged that Dr. Leinders held a Belgian cycling license while working for Rabobank, thus subjecting him to the UCI Anti-Doping Rules. See UCI ADR Art, 2 (2001-2004); UCI ADR An. 1 2005-2008); UCI ADR Ast. 1 (2009-2014), Moreover, even if Dr. Leinders had not eld a cycling licens, his activities as chief team doctor forthe Rabobank cycling team would cause him to be treated as 8 “License-Holder” subject to the UCI Anti-Doping Rules.” The Pane! therefore concludes that Dr. Leinders was at all ‘relevant times subject to the UCI Anti-Doping Rules. 89, USADA is the National Anti-Doping Organization of the United States and an Anti-Doping Organization for purposes of the WADC and the UCL ADR, See WADC Appendix 1, UCI ADR Appendix 1 (2005-2008); UCI ADR Appendix 1 (2009-2014), Article 10 of UCL ADR (2005-2008) and Article 11 of UCI ADR (2009-2014) provide that in the case ofan anti- doping violation nt involving e sample collection (ie, a“non-snastcal ese”) discovered by an Anti-Doping Organization other than the UC, the rules ofthat ober Anti-Doping Organization will apply tothe violation, Further, when a National Anti-Doping Organization Aiscovers an anti-doping violation by a “foreign or nonresident individual, the UCI ADR provide that results management and the conduct of hearings for that violation are administered (Genta previo page) WADC Art 10:3 (2003) A doping violation involving a specified substance may result in a reduced sanction where “the Use of such a specified substance was not intended to enhance sport performance” "The term “License-Holder” is defined in Appendix of UCI ADR (2005-2008) to include any’ person who, without being the holder ofa sens, participates ina cycling event in any capacity, including 38 & eam saffmember or medical personnel. Provisions of simlarefet ae conaiod in Ale 18 of UCL [ADR (2009-2018), See also USADA v. Brace AAA No, 7 190 00228 12 (2014) (eonelading that a Spanish physician who worked forthe US. Pestal Service and Discovery Channel eyeing teams from 2004-2007 without a license from the Spanish eyling federation was subject to UCT ADR). ® All references to WADC are to WADC (2003) unless otherwise noted,bby and under the rules ofthat National Anti-Doping Orgenization UCI ADR Art, 11 (2005 2008); UCI ADR Art. 13 (2009-2014). 90. Dr. Leinders’ alleged violations of the UCI ADR were first discovered by LUSADA during a June 22, 2012 interview of Levi Leipheimer in connection with its investigation of the U.S. Postal Service team USADA’s investigation of Dr. Leinders continued and culminated inthe Charging Letter. The Pane! is not aware of any evidence that any other Anti-Doping Organization had knowledge of the alleged doping offenses charged in this matter prior to USADA’s interview of Mr, Leipheimer. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that USADA properly exercised results management authority over this case and properly exercised the right to enforce the UCI ADR against Dr. Lenders with respect tothe violations alleged in the Charging Letter, subject to the applicable statute of limitations as discussed below. “On January 1, 2015, UCI iseed revised anti-doping rules that no longer include the cited results management provisions. The revised rules provide UCI with primary results management authority and {ursdction “flor potential violations of [tke UCI ADR] where no Testing is involved) for all ‘ilatons involving Inermational-eve! Riders, Rider Support Personnel ox other Persons who have an involvement in ay espacity in Jnvemational Evens or with Internatonal-tevel Riders, ) fer all violations occurring in connection with—or discovered on the occasion of an International Event.” UCLADR An. 71:12 2015). The 2015 UCI ADR, honever,specifally state that "[)hese Anti-Doping Rules shall not apply retroactively to matters pending before the datethe Code is accepted by a Signatory and implemented in ts rules,” except in two limited circumstances, mmely the statute of limitations tunder Article 17 and consideration of multiple violations under Article 10.7.5. UCI ADR Art 245,252 (@015). For the reasons discussed below, see infra note 15, the statute of limitations does not apply ‘eractvely inthis case. Further, wile this cas involves multiple violations, reteactve application of UCTADR Antcle 10.75, which sates that “each anti-doping violation must ake place within the same ten-year period in order tobe considered for multiple violations,” doesnot alter the Panels analysis; all anti-doping violations considered by the Panel in impesing 2 ifttime sanction on Dr. Lenders ozcurred from 2004-2007 and ts within a ten-year period. In addition, the Panel notes thatthe “results management” ofthis ease, including USADA’s isuance of notice and charges to Dr. Linders, the Panel's holding ofa hearing, andthe closing ofthe evidentiary record all occurred price to the January 1, 2015 effective date ofthe new UCT ADR. The UCI ADR (2015) results management rules therefore do not govern this action. aVL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, 91, Any action for a violation ofthe UCI ADR must be “commenced within eight (8) years from the date the violation occurred.” UCI ADR Art. 307 (2005-2008); UCI ADR Art. 368 (2009-2014). Moreover, “any act of investigation. shall be considered as commencement ‘of the action for the purpose ofthis article.” Jd. These provisions went into effect on August 13, 2004; prior to that date, the UCI ADR did not provide any statute of limitations regarding the ‘commencement of actions for anti-doping rule violations. The Panel concludes thatthe eight- year statute of limitations in effect since August 13, 2004 applies to the claims at isue.!* 92, The Panel finds that USADA's first at of investigation of Dr. Leinders occurred ‘on June 22, 2012, the date on which Levi Leipheimer first provided USADA with credible testimony that Dr. Leinders committed anti-doping violations. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that USADA is entitled to proceed against Dr. Leinders for violations of the UCI ADR that ‘occurred on or after June 22, 2004 VIL BURDEN OF PROOF, METHODS OF ESTABLISHING ANTI-DOPING Mi VERSE INFERENCES. 93. USADA bears the burden of proving to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel, and bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations made, that an anti-doping rule violation hhas occurred. UCI ADR Art. 16 (2005-2008); UCI ADR Art. 22 (2009-2014); WADC Art. 3.1 " While Anicle 17 of the new UCI ADR (2015) provides fora ten-year statute of limitations, Aticle 25.2 states, “the statute of limitations st forth in Article 17 [isa procedural rule and should be applied retroactively; provided, however, that Article 17 shall only be applied retcacively ifthe tate of limitation period has not already expiced by the Effective Date" Because the state of limitations for all acts occurring before June 2, 2004, the starting date for purposes ofthe prior eight-year statute of limitations, has already expired the neve ten-year statute of limitations doesnot apply retreactively to extend the statute of limitation to reach those act, Fr]94. USADA must establish an anti-doping violation under the substantive anti-doping, rules in effect when such violation occurred; here, the UCI anti-doping rules effective from June 22, 2004 through 2007, and the corresponding provisions of the 2003 WADC. * 95. Pursuant to WADC 3.2, “fees related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions.""” Circumstantial evidence and witness {estimony may be used to establish an anti-doping rue violation, which does not require proof of positive drug test, See, eg, ASADA ». Wyper, CAS A4/2007; USADA v. Gaines, CAS 2008/0/649; USADA v. Montgomery, CAS 2004/0/645; USADA v. Block, AAA No. 77 190 00154 10 2011); USADA w. Stewart, AAA No, 77 190 110 2010); USADA O'Bee, AAA No. 77 190 (00515 09 (2010), USADA v. Leogrande, AAA No. 77190 00111 08 (2008); USADA v. Collins, AAA.30 190 00658 08 (2004). 96. Amticle 32.4 ofthe 2009 WADC is a rule of evidence applicable to this proceeding" through its incorporation into the USADA Protocol.” That provision provides: “ USADA has filed to preset evidence tothe Panel's comfortable satisfaction that Dr. Lenders committed any anti-doping rule violations ater 2007, and thus the Panel azed ony consider the substantive rules in effect ater 2007 for purposes of ix mitior. WADC 25.2 (2009) C*With respect to any anti-doping rule violation case which is pending a of the Effective Date and any anti-doping rule ‘oltion case brought after the Effective Date based on an anti-doping rule violation which occured Doro the tective Date, th case shall be govemed bythe substantive an-doping rales in effect atthe time the alleged ant-doping rule violation occurred unless the panel hearing the case determines the ‘principle of lex mitior”appropnately apples under the eicumstances ofthe case") see also WADC 252 (2015). Under the principe of Zex mator, when the law relevant othe offense has been amended, te accused receives the benefit ofthe lest sever’more favorable law, See EA.» International Biathlon Union, CAS 2009 A/1931, at 24 "This provision i identical inthe 2003, 2009 and 2015 WADC. ™ Rules of evidence setting forth the means by which an anti-doping offense may be established are “taws and rules relating to procedural matters [tat apply immediately ugon entering into force and regardles of when the facs at ssue occurred” Sun v, FINA, CAS 200UA/274 a 973; see also Peohstein & DEG v. ISU, CAS 2009/A/1912 at 4109 (“As long a the substaatve rule sanctioning a given conduct as doping i in force pio othe conduc, the rezort toa new evidentiary method does net constitute a case of retrospective application ofthe law") 25‘The hearing panel in a hearing on an anti-doping rule violation may draw an inference adverse to the Athlete or other Person who is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation based ‘on the Athlete's or other Person’ refusal, afler a request made in a reasonable time in advance of the hearing, to appear at the hearing (either in person or telephonically as directed by the hearing pane!) ‘and to answer questions from the hearing panel or the Anti-Doping. ‘Organization asserting the anti-doping rule violation, See also WADC Ar. 3.25 2015), 97. Courts have ruled itis appropriate and lawful for atribunal to draw an adverse inference against a respondent ina disciplinary proceeding who refuses to answer questions, including one in which sanctions may be imposed forthe respondent's violation oF sports organization's code of conduct. In Buller»: Oak Creek-Franklin Schoo! District, V72 F.Supp. 24 1102, 1126 ED. Wis 2001), a federal district cour explained [T]he Supreme Court held in Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318, 96 Ci. 1551, 47 LEd2d $10 (1976), that the Fifth ‘Amendment does allow an adverse inference to be drawn against partis in non-eriminal proceedings “when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them ” (emphasis added). See also Harris v. City of Chicago, 266 F.3d 750, 752-53 (Mth Cir. 2001) (Same, quoting Baxter v. Palmigiano ). Thus, if a Aecision-maker has independent evidence that someone’ has engaged in misconduct, the decision-maker may constitutionally consider the person’s silence as addtional supporting evidence. In short, where there i other evidence of misconduct, ... silence may properly become an additional factor pointing towards a guilty finding, Morale v. Grigel, 422 F. Supp, 988, 1003 (D NH. 1976) 98. Because Dr. Leinders refused to participate in the August 12, 2014 hearing despite his July 26, 2013 request forthe hearing and USADA's August 4, 2014 written request JSADA asks the Panel to draw that he appear to answer questions from USADA and the Panel, (Foam pro pa Paragraph 3(2) ofthe USADA Protocol states that “Articles ofthe [WADC] tt forth in Annex A “which i incomporated by reference into the USADA Protocol shall apply in all eases.” USADA Protocol atp.3adverse inferences regarding Dr. Leinders’ 1) “guilty knowledge and wrongfil intent to violate the [charged] anti-doping rules.” 2) “willful disregard ofthe health risks to riders and coercive nature of [his] involvement in doping as a medical professional and member ofthe Rabobank ‘cling team board of directors,” and 3) “concealment and cover up of doping activities and failure to accept responsibility.” USADA requests that the Panel draw these adverse inferences. primarily to prove agravating factors supporting its contention that lifetime ineligibility is an appropriate and justified sanction for Dr. Leinders’ anti-doping violations 99. Although it has valid and awful authority todo so, the Panel finds it unnecessary to draw any adverse inferences against Dr. Leinders, including the specific adverse inferences requested by USADA, based on his refusal to appear and testify at the hearing.” USADA has presented uncontroverted testimonial and documentary evidence that Dr, Leinders committed cach of the charged anti-doping violations as wel as direct and circumstantial evidence of agaravating factors that justify imposition of lifetime ineligibility as a sanction for those Violations. Under such circumstances, where there is “uncontroverted evidence of such a direct and compelling nature, there is simply no need for any additional inference tobe drawn from the Respondent's refusal to testify.” USADA v, Gaines, CAS 2004/0649 at $58; USADA v, ‘Montgomery, CAS 2008/0/64S at 5. * tn an ant-doping arbitration proceeding, the panel isnot required to draw an adverse inference merely fioma respondent’ refusal 1 testify. USADA v. Bryneel, AAA 77 190 00225 12 2014) a $72 (“While \WADC Section 3.2.4 is unclear on what kindof adverse inference may'be dravm and there is n0 Aefinition of ts scope, itis clear that ection 324 is permissive and not mandatory), USADA v: Collins ‘AAA 30 1900000058 08 (2008) at 13.9 (observing “there i no rule obigating a IMbunal 1 aw an adverse inference”, 2VIL. ANTI-DOPING VIOLATIONS 100, Asan initial matte, the Pane finds that both Michael Rasmussen and Levi Leipheimer provided credible testimony that Dr. Leinders committed anti-doping violations on or after June 22, 2004. The witnesses provided detailed testimony regarding specific doping ‘occurrences and conversations, and that testimony was consistent withthe information uncovered by NAD during its investigation and Mr. Robertson's interview of Stefan Matschiner" Further, the testimony of Mr. Rasmussen was in several instances also corroborated by contemporaneous documentary evidence. The Panel concludes that Mr. [Rasmussen and Mr. Leipheimer provided truthful testimony, and notes that their testimony stands uncontroverted, 101. ‘The Pane! also finds that EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, insulin, DHEA, and LH were on WADA’ list of prohibited substances and prokibited methods —whether used in or out-of-compettion—from June 22, 2004 through 2007, the time period within the statute of limitations during which Dr. Leinders’ anti-doping violations occurred. During ths time period, _lucoconticosteoids (a/k/a corticosteroids) were a prohibited substance when used in ‘competition and administered intramuscularly ® ® ‘orcover, while Dr, Sebunacher's alysis of Rabubaak’'s blood data does mot prove dite evidence of Dr. Leinder’s doping offenses, hs analysis does confirm Mr. Rasmussen's and Mr. Leipheimer's testimony that doping was occurring onthe Rabobank cycling team daring the relevant period ® WADA’s Prohibited List states that “all glucocontcosteroids are prohibited when administered orally, rectly, intravenously or intramusculaey [and] [helt use requites a Therapeutic Use Exemption approval” ey|. POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES/METHODS: 102, Under UCI ADR Article 15.6 (2005-2008), possession of prohibited substances. ‘or methods constitutes an anti-doping rule violation” “Possession” is defined as: ‘The actual, physical possession, or the constructive possession (hich shall be tound only ifthe person has exclusive control over the Prohibited Substance/Method or the premises in which a Prohibited Substance/Method exists); provided, however, that if the person does not have exclusive control over the Prohibited SwbsiancesMethod or the premises in which a Prohibited Substance/Method exists, constructive possession shall only be found if the person knew about the presence of the Prohibited SubsianceMethod and intended to exercise control over it Provided, however, there shall be no anti-doping rule violation ‘based solely on possession if prior to receiving notification of any kind that the Person has committed an anti-doping rule violation, ‘the Person has taken concrete action demonstrating thet the Person rno longer intends to have Possession and has renounced the Person's previous Possession UCI ADR Appendix 1 (2005-2008), Unless otherwise noted all references tothe UCI ADR hereinafter are tothe UCI ADR (2005-2008), effective as of August 13,2004, the version in effect throughout most ofthe relevant period. The Panel recognizes, however, tha for acts occurring between June 22, 2004 and August 12, 2004, the prior version ofthe UCT ADR (hereinafter, “UCT ADR (2004) aplies. While UCI ADR (2004) didnot specfialy identify “possession” as a separate doping offense, acs of possession under those rules were prohibited under Article 32), Article 133 andor Anticle 135. See UCEADR Art. 33) 2004) ‘Recommending, proposing, authorising, condoning or facilitating the use of any substance or method overed by the definition of doping or trafficking is also forbidden"), AR. 133 (prohibiting “complicity.” “Aniempt” is defined as “Iphuposely engaging in conduct that constitutes a substantial stp in a course cf conduct planned to culminate i the commission of an anti-doping rule violation. Provided, however, there shall be no anti-doping rule violation based solely onan Artem to commit a violation i the Person Temunciates the attempt prior to it being discovered by a third party nt involved inthe Attempe.” UCL [ADR Appendix | (2003-2008), ® Although UCI ADR (2004) did not specifically identify “administration” as a separate offense, acs of ‘administration andor attempted administration were prohibited under Anicle 36) and Article 133 Complicity”) As discussed above, see supra notes 23 & 27, UCI ADR (2004) applies only 0 acts occurring between June 22, 2004- August 12, 2004, and acts occurring on or after August 13, 2004 are ‘governed by UCI ADR (2005.2008) (effective as of August 13,2008) Because, however, violations for “complicity” under Article 133 of UCT ADR (2004) and “administration” under UCI ADR Article 15.8 (2008-2008) cary the same penalty, the effet of finding a voltion under either provision i the same.D. ASSISTING, ENCOURAGING, AIDING, ABETTING, COVERING UP AND OTHER COMPLICITY IN ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS, 111. Under UCI ADR Antcle 15.8 (2005-2008), assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation or any attempted violation constitutes an anti-doping rule violation * 112, USADA has presented substantial evidence that Dr. Leinders assisted, encouraged, sided, abetted, covered up and was otherwise complicit in anti-doping rule violations or attempted anti-doping rule violations on or after June 22, 2004, including: ‘+ Dr Leinders kept insulin on the team bus during the 2004 and 2005 TTours de France and had insulin delivered to Mr. Rasmussen each night during those races. ‘+ Dr. Leinders supervised Mr. Leipheimer’s use of EPO in preparation for the 2004 ‘Tour de France.”® ‘Dr. Leinders assisted Mr. Rasmussen with blood transfusions during the 2004 and 2008 Tours de France ‘© Dr. Leinders assisted Mr. Rasmussen with an LH injection during the 2005 Tour de France, ‘+ Dr Leinders assisted Michael Boogerd and Denis Menchov in receiving blood transfusions during the 2005 Tour de France ‘© Dr Leinders assisted Mr. Rasmussen with use of DHEA in 2008. ‘+ Dr. Leinders advised Mr. Rasmussen in 2005 to contact Michael Boogerd so that he could gain access to the Human Plasma clinic for advanced blood doping. 5 See also UCI ADR An. 133 (2008) (defining “complicity” as any “contbutfion] directly or indirectly to doping a rider, including intr ala recommending, proposing, authorising, permiting, tolerating or facilitating the use ofa substance or method which defined as doping") The Panel notes that acorn to the “2004 Tour de France tages” document provided by USADA (Exhibit 78), the Tour gan on Fly 2, 2004. Accepting a tre that Mr. Leipheimer ceased use of EPO five days pia othe beginning ofthe Tour, the only use of EPO by Mr Leipheimer occuring within the statue of limitations, and ths considered by the Panel, was ftom June 22-28, 2004 3‘+ Dr-Leinders assisted Mr. Rasmussen with blood doping during the 2007 Giro d'Italia by testing his blood with Rabobank’s Sysmex machine to assess the impact of Mr, ‘Rasmussen infusing two bags of blood during a single stage race ‘© Dr. Leinders wrote Mr. Rasmussen false medical certificates for cortisone from 2004-2007, ‘Dr. Leinders had testosterone pills manufactured, distributed them to Rabobank cyclists and disguised those pls as A~Zinc to avoid detection. 113. ‘The Panel concludes that USADA has met its burden of demonstrating to the Panel's comfortable satisfaction that on or after June 22, 2004 through 2007, Dr. Leinders assisted, encouraged, sided, abetted, covered up and was otherwise complicit in anti-doping le violations IX, SANCTION 114, Pursuant fo UCT ADR Anicle 261 (2005-2008), as well as Article 10.2 ofthe 2003 WADC, Dr. Leinders is subject to a two-year period of ineligibility as sanction for possession of prohibited substances and methods” However, because the Panel has found that Dr. Leinders has committed multiple doping offenses, under UCI ADR 269 (2008-2008) and Article 10.6.1 ofthe 2003 WADC, all offenses are, under the circumstances presented inthis case, “considered as one single first violation, and the sanction imposed shall be based on the > As discussed above, see supra note 23, for ats of possesion commited by Dr. Leinders between June 22, 2004-August 12,2004, the substantive provisions of UCI ADR (2004) apply. While UCI ADR (2004) 4idnot specifically identify “possession” as a separate doping offense, acs of posension under thowe ris were prohibited under Article 33), Article 133 andor Article 135. However, because Article 133 ‘aried a minimum suspension of four years and Article 135 carried a mandatory ifetime suspension, under the doctrine of lex mtior Dr. Leinders receives the benefit ofthe leser sanction under UCI ADR. (2005-2008) for acts of possession committed between June 22, 2004- August 12, 2004. Moreover, wile the 2015 UCI ADR and WADC provide fra sanction of for years of ineligibility for possession offenses unless the person who crmmited he anticdoping violation proves swe not intentional, hess provisions do not apply retroacvely. See supra nate 18 34violation that caries the more severe sanction" As described below, the sanction for Dt. Linders’ prohibited acts of trafficking and administration of prohibited substances and/or ‘methods it more sovere than the sanction for possession, and thas call apply. 11S. Pursuant to UCI ADR Ast, 263(2) (2005-2008), For violations of article 15.7 (Trafficking) or article 15.8 (administration of Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method), the period of Ineligibility imposed shall be a minimum of 4 (four) years up to lifetime Jneligibilty. An anti-doping rule violation involving a Minor shall be considered @ pantcularly serious violation, and, if committed by Rider Support Personnel for violations other than specified substances referenced in article 262, shall result in hfetime Ineligibility for such Rider Support Personnel See also WADC Ast. 10.4.2 2003), WADC Ast 103.3 (2018)° 116. The UCI ADR and WADC allow forthe elimination andor reduction ofthe ‘minimum four-year period of ineligibility in exceptional circumstances. See UCI ADR 265 (2005-2008); WADC Art 10.5 (2003); WADC 10.5 (2009). Because Dr. Leinders did not The 2015 WADE contain a nearly identical provision Under UCI ADR 135(1) (2004), the sanction for trafficking of prohibited substances was mandatory liteime ineligibility. The currently applicable sanction for trafficking, however, sa minimum of four (8) ‘years up to lifttime ineligibility. Under the doctrine of lex mir, Dr. Leinders receives the benefit ofthe lesser sanction provided by the current rules, and thus for acts of tricking commited by Dr. Lenders ‘rom June 22, 2004-August 12,2004, the applicable sanction is feur years upto lifecime ineligibility, rather than mandatory lifetime ineligibility. ™ Under the UCI ADR (2005-2008), tis provision, by definition, aso provided the sanction for prohibited acts of assisting, encouraging, aiding, abcting, covering up and otherwise being compli in ‘he commission of anti-doping rule Violations. See UCT ADR Art 13 (2005-2008). But under the 2015 UCL ADR, the sanction for complicity offenses “shall bea minimum of two years, upto four years, depending on the seriousness of the violation” UCT ADR Art. 10.34(2015). While under te doctrine of le mio, Dr. Lenders receives the benefit of the current sanction for his complicity offenses, as discussed above, the Panel has found tat Dr. Leinders has eommitteé multiple doping offenses, and thus under UCI Aricie 269 (2008-2008) and WADC Article 106.1, the sunction imposed is based on the olson carrying the more severe sanction, ie, the sanction for trafficking and administration of prohibited substances and methods. 35provide any testimony or other evidence at the hearing, the Panel finds there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify an elimination or reduction of the minimum four-year sanction 117, Neither UCI ADR Antcle 263(2) (2005-2008) nor the corresponding provisions of the WADA Code list any factors to be considered in determining the appropria senction to be imposed within the range of four years to lifetime ineligibility” The Panel notes though that ‘the Comment to Article 104.2 of the 2003 WADC states: “Those who are involved in doping Athletes or covering up doping shouldbe subject to sanctions which are more sever than the Athletes wit test postive” Accord Comment to WADC Ant 1033 (2015)"* 118, Anti-doping arbitration panels have determined thatthe folowing aggravating factors ae relevant in determining whether a sanction longer than the prescribed four-year ‘minimum period of ineligibility is appropriate and should be imposed on athlete support personnel: “Tead{ing] an athlete into danger of using prohibited sutstances” rather than “being a Watchdog when it comes to prohibited substances” (USADA v. Drummond, AAA No. O1-14- (0000-6146 (2014) at p. 22-23); existence of “multiple violations and seriousness ofthe offenses” (Gruyneet a $923 1-232); “providfing] substantial help for multiple third-party anti-doping rule violations” (Hoch v. FIS & IOC, CAS 2008/A/1513 (2009) at $8.84), being “atthe apex ofa conspiracy to commit widespread doping... spanning many years and many riers” (Bruyneel at 1225), “acting in bad faith and with a view to dissimulating doping practices” (WADA v. Jamuludin, etal, CAS 2012/A/2791 (2013) at p. 14), “acting intentionally when undertaking the > These provision also do net indicate whether any facts and crcumstarces ouside ofthe saute of limitations period may be considered in determining the appropriateness and length ofan enhanced sanction. In ths cas, the Pan! finds it unnecessary to venture outside ts limitations period because there is sufficient evidence of aggravating factors within the statute of limitations period to justify impoting lifetime ineligibility on Dr, Linders fr bis anti-doping violations ‘is appropriate forthe Panel to consider offical comments when interpreting the provisions of the \WADC and anti-doping rules based on the WADC. Hane Krause: FIS, 2005 CASIA/B47 at 73.4 36serious anti-doping violation he committed” (Jamalucin at p. 36); “long-time experience in his position” (lamaludin at p. 37), " inder{taking] seriously deceptive and obstructive actions” (amatudin at p. 37); being ina position “which presents him to young men and women as a ‘rusted advisor and confidant” (USADA v. Stewart, AAA No. 77 190 110 10 (2010) at p. 6); “administration of highly dangerous substances, which presented a risk of grave injury or death toany athlete who used the substances” (Stewart at p. 6); and “the need to senda clear and deterring message to other athlete support personnel” (USADA v. Block, No, 77 190 00154 10 @onn) a 99) 119. In Block, the panel observed ‘The cases are clear that athlete suppor personnel owe a higher uty to the integrity of the anti-doping system than even do athletes. The athlete support personnel suspensions are generally far more severe than those for athletes because of the position of trust and commitment to integrity expected of athlete support personnel ‘The cases, and frequently the relevant anti-doping rules, show that lifetime bans typically have involved multiple doping offenses regarding athletes and lengthy, substantial involvement in ‘comprehensive doping activity, and efforts to cover up doping in cases involving athlete support personnel. (599.3 and 9.5) 120, Consistent wth the Comment to Article 10.4.2 of the 2003 WADC, in Jemaludin, the CAS panel recognized that “deceptive and obstructive actions by coaches or managers aimed at covering up systematic and widespread doping practices ofa serious nature (because ofthe type of products involved) may lead tothe highest possible sanction, ie, toa life ban.” (p. 37) 121 In Stewart, the aitrator imposed a lifetime suspension on a coach for trafficking, administration, and attempted administration of prohibited substances, including EPO and insulin, as well as assisting, encouraging, aiding and abetting, and complicity in connection with athletes" anti-doping violations forthe following reasons: 37[Als 2 coach, [he] isto be held to higher standard of conduct due to his position of trust and responsibilty. He was involved with the use and administration of highly dangerous substances, which presented a risk of grave injury or death to any athlete wo used the substances, and which substances were secured and provided to ‘them by (him). Further, he engaged in repested violations of ant doping rules over @ number of years. In ight of Dr. Daniel Eichner’s testimony regarding the potentially lethal nature ofthe drugs procured by Stewart... and provided to his charges in non-medically supervised environments, the risk to the athletes has been established. ‘These facts plus his position of coach which presents him to young, men and women as a trusted advisor and confident; as one who knows the path to gold and glory places an inviolable responsibilty on him to be a role model and leader. The rejection ofthis responsibilty presents a personal affront to his athletes; a repudiation of USADA, WADA rules and the expectations of the sporting world, particularly when the practice involves. multiple Violations. (p. 6) 122. “CAS's jurisprudence makes it clear that a sanction imposed on an athlete or on athlete support personnel must respect the principe of proportionality. This is particularly so here—like in the present case—the applicable rules regarding the extent ofthe sanction allow ample scope. In that case the sanction imposed must be inline wit the seriousness of the offence.” Hoch at $8.8. 123, _Anti-doping tribunals have imposed a broad range of periods of ineligibility on athlete support personnel for trafficking and administration offenses, ranging from 6 yeers to lifetime ineligibility. See, e.g,, Bruymeel (6 years—trainer, 8 years—team physician, 10 years— team director; Drummond (8 years—coach); Jamaludin (10 yesrs—coach); Block (10 years— coach/manager/event manager/athlete representativelagent); Hoch (15 years—teainer/coach); ‘Stewart (lifetime ban—coach) 124, _Indetermining the appropriate sanction to impose on Dr. Leinders, the Panel has considered the Comment to Article 10.42 of the 2003 WADG, the aggravating factors identified 38by other antsdoping tribunals, as well asthe periods of ineligibility imposed on athlete support personne! for these offenses in other cases. 125. Based on the uncontrovered evidence of numerous aggravating factors inthis case, the Pane determines that the imposition ofifetime ineligibility on Dr. Linders is an appropriate, jus, and proportionate sanction for these serious anti-doping offenses, and necessary “to senda clear and dterting message to other athlete support personel” Block a 99.6. In particular, the Pane! finds that Dr. Linders’ conduct evidences the existence of the following sggravating factors: ‘© Obstructing conduct to avoid adjudication of anti-doping rule violations by intially requesting this arbitration proceeding and, without withdrawing his request, refusing, to participate in it orto provide hearing testimony after being requested to do so; ‘© Having long-time experience asthe chief team physician forthe Rabobank cycling team from 1996-2009 and as a memiber of its board of directors from 2004-2009, © As chief team physician and a director, being in positions “which presentfed] him to young men and women asa trusted advisor and confidaat,” ‘Stewart at p. 6), thereby ‘enabling him to “lead ... athletes] into the danger of using probibited substances” (Drummond ap. 22), ‘+ Committing multiple serious anti-doping nule violations from Tune 22, 2004-2007, including possession, trafficking and administration of several prohibited substances and methods, including FPO, blood transfusion paraphernalia, testosterone, insulin, DHEA, LH, and coniosteroids, as well as assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, ‘and complicity in connection with anti-doping violations; Possessing, trafficking and administering several “highly dangerous” prohibited substances or prohibited methods without any legitimate medical need, including EPO, blood transfusion paraphernalia, testosterone, insulin, DHEA, LH, and corticosteroids, which “presented a risk of grave injury or death” tothe athletes who used these substances (Stewart at p. 6), according to Dr. Bowers’ testimony, ‘Providing substantial and improper assistance to multiple athletes, including Michael Rasmussen, Levi Leipheimer, Michael Boogerd and Denis Menchov, thereby enabling them to obtain and use multiple prohibited substances and prohibited ‘methods including EPO, blood transfusion paraphernalia, tesosteron, insulin, DHEA, LH, and corticosteroids and to commit several anti-doping rule violations; 29‘+ Acting intentionally when engaging inthe serious anti-doping violations he committed by, inter alia, possessing testosterone disguised as A-Zinc, writing false medical certificates for cortisone for Michael Rasmussen, and assisting Mr. Rasmussen with blood doping during the 2007 Giro d'Italia by testing his blood with [Rabobank’s Sysmex machine to asess the impact of Mr. Rasmussen infusing two bags of blood during a single stage race; ‘© “[Ulnder{taking} seriously deceptive and obstructive actions” by engaging inthe foregoing conduct (Jamatudin at p. 37); and + Being “at the apex ofa conspiracy to commit widespread doping... spanning many ‘years and many riders” in his capacity asthe chief team physician and a member of the board of directors during the time these anti-doping rules violations occurred (Grugnee! at (29), 126, ‘The Panel concludes thatthe aggravating factors inthis case are very similar to, and equal or exceed, those in Stewart, in which a sanction of lifetime ineligibility was imposed ‘on a coach, As the chief team physician and a member of the board of directors for the Rabobank cycling team, Dr. Leinders occupied even higher positions of trust and responsibilty, and was “atthe apex ofa conspiracy to commit widespread doping... spanning many years and many riders” Bripneel at 229°" Therefore, he should receive a sanction no less severe than the coach in Stewart, These facts di inguish this case from Hoch, in which a CAS panel ‘imposed a fifteen-year period of ineligibility ona trainer/coach rater than lifetime ineligibility, ‘hich it acknowledged “may be appropriate if [he] was the principal or the leader ofthe doping conspiracy surrounding the Austrian cross-country ski team” Hoch at 8.8.4. These circumstances, along withthe above numerous aggravating factor, also distinguish this case from Brayneel, in which a team physician received only an eight-year period ofineligibilty because he “was a mere instrument (albeit one with professional training and obligations who Fx this reason, this case is readily distinguishable from Drummond in which an AAA panel imposed an eight-year suspension ona coach fr facilitating a single athlete's use of prohibited substances to ‘cover Bom an iury 40should have known better) as opposed tothe orgaizer ofthe doping conspiracy or scheme” Briynee! at $231. Although the Braye! panel imposed only a ten-year perio of ineligibility on 4 team director who “was st the apex of conspiracy to commit widespread doping on the USPS. and Discovery Channel teams” (Briynee! at 229), the mumerousagaravating factors in this case (which were not present in connection with the team director's conduct) justify a period of [fetime ineligibility for Dr. Leinders' anti-doping violations 127. The “period of ineligibility shall stat onthe date of the hearing decision providing for Inligeilo,” which for purposes of Dr. Lenders lifetine ineligibility isthe date ofthis Award, UCI ADR Art 275 (2005-2008); WADC An, 108 (2003), ee also WADC 10.11 2015). X. DECISION AND AWARD. The Arbitrators therefore rule a follows 1. USADA has sustained its burden of proving tothe Peel's comfortable satisfaction that Dr. Leinders commited the following doping offenses on or afer fune 22, 2004: possession of prohibited substances and/or methods; trafficking of prohibited substances and/or ‘methods; administration andlor attempted administration of prohibited substances and/or ‘methods, and asiting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity involving anti-doping rule violations 2. The Panel imposes lifetime period of ineligibility, commencing on he date of this Award 3. The partes shall bear their own attorney's fes and costs associated with this arbitration. 414, Theadminisitive fees ané expenses ofthe AAA and the competion and expenses of the Panel shal be ome a incurred 5S. This Award shall ben fil nd fl resolution ofall aims submited in thi tsbirtion, The Pane! bas considered afte arguments made by he pts, wheter o ot they ae specifically referenced inthis Award All laims not expressly granted herein ae hereby dened 6. This Award may be executed in any number of counterpart, eth of which shall ‘be deemed an orginal and ll of which stall constitute together one nd the same instrument Dated; January 1, 2015, Hite) phe Wiarmend Mice Tinntty 120