Exchange of letters between Thanou and IOC

25 July 2008

Dear Ms Thanou

This is to inform you that the issue of your participation to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad in Beijing in 2008 will be considered by the IOC Executive Board at its next meeting to be held in Beijing prior to such Olympic Games.

In that context, the IOC disciplinary commission will submit its recommendations to the IOC Executive Board.

The facts which will be considered and which could affect your participation are in particular:

a. your general attitude and behaviour towards the IOC and the Olympic Movement upon the occasion of the Athens 2004 Olympic Games and thereafter, taking into account the disrepute and prejudice caused to the Olympic Movement;

b. your subsequent acknowledgement of having breached the rules of the IAAF;

c. the status of the criminal procedure directed against you by the Greek judicial authorities.

The IOC reserves its right to take into account any other relevant developments or facts.

Sincerely yours

Howard Stupp

Director of Legal Affairs

1st August 2008

Dear Mr Stupp

RE: Ms KATERINA THANOU

1. Thank you for your facsimile dated 25 July 2008 the contents of which I have noted. You would appreciate that your letter was sent outside business hours last Friday and therefore, we were only able to read it with the appropriate attention on the 28th day of July 2008. This being the case, we must stress our dissatisfaction for the time limit provided for our response, considering at the same time the seriousness of the allegations and the consequences for the interested parties.

2. We must also raise our concerns and question the intention of the IOC for the granting of the right of Ms Thanou to be heard by filling a written submission only. This, with respect, contravenes a number of legal principles and rights afforded to the accused, as well as the specific regulations of the World Anti-Doping Agency Code and the Regulations of the IAAF, which clearly state that the accused has the right to be represented at the hearing live, with the right to also call witnesses, present evidence and the right to cross-examine witnesses and rebut evidence, if any, against her. This, you would, no doubt, agree, cannot take place by the filling of a written submission.

3. In addition, the next meeting of the IOC Executive Board who will decide on Ms Thanou's participation, takes place next weekend (2-3 August 2008). Given that the deadline you have provided us with, expires on the 1st day of August 2008, creates a suspicion and raises an eye-brow, as to the ability of the members of the Board to consider the evidence presented in less than a day and make a decision that will have unforeseen consequences.

4. For these and other reasons, which will be analysed at a different time and forum, we do not accept the "facts" as they appear in your letter of 25 July 2008. They are irrelevant as to the issues under discussion, they violate basic and well established principles of law, they are arbitrary, capricious, biased and discriminatory and give rise to both civil and criminal liability, not only against the IOC as a sporting governing body, but also against certain individuals of the Movement. In other words, Ms Thanou submits that she has no case to answer.

5. To avoid any misunderstanding as to our imminent action, we would very briefly counter the "facts" in your letter of 25 July 2008:

As to

a) We do not accept its content as it is vague, lacks legal certainty and it does not have legal grounds to exclude Ms Thanou from the forthcoming Olympiad. Being a lawyer yourself, you would agree that the accused must be aware of the allegations against him and evidence must be presented against him, so the accused could be able to counter it. No such evidence has been provided or produced against Ms Thanou, so the content in point (a) of your letter lacks the legal substance that will give rise to the application of a sanction. No decision can be taken against Ms Thanou and in relation to point (a) if there is any evidence, which supports point (a), such evidence must be presented against Ms Thanou, so she could be able to counter it.

b) We do not accept its content, as the issues arising out of the CAS Arbitration CAS/A/887 2005 which dealt with the case in question, have been settled out of court with the parties reaching an agreement. Your attempt to review the case goes against certain principles of law, save to mention the most obvious one of "double jeopardy". The terms of the agreement also preclude you from referring to this matter, unless a Court of Law could Order the re-examination of evidence. It is obvious that you have no such powers. An attempt therefore, to re-open the case and direct allegations against Ms Thanou for an offence which has already been settled, with the official approval of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, would violate many rights afforded to Ms Thanou and which they could be dealt with by the appropriate Courts of Law. The content of point (b) therefore, of your letter dated 25 July 2008, with respect, is irrelevant and does not have the legal certainty which will warrant the legality of a possible sanction.

c) We do not accept its content, as the Director of Public Prosecutions in the Hellenic Criminal Justice system and the IAAF have concluded that there is no evidence to substantiate allegations against Ms Thanou and in relation to the BALCO case or the charge of evasion and/or refusal to undertake an anti-doping control. Further, an attempt to examine issues that relate to the criminal proceedings in Greece will seriously violate Ms Thanou's right to a fair trial and it would breach the European Convention on Human Rights and it would constitute an interference with an independent criminal procedure of a country's criminal justice system. Similarly, it is our submission that point (c) in your letter dated 25 July 2008, is irrelevant and vague, as it does not include the particulars of the allegations and it lacks legal certainty. I would also respectfully like to remind you, that a similar attempt before the Court of Arbitration for Sport failed and it deemed inadmissible.

6. We would kindly ask you to consider the above with the appropriate attention, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations and the consequences for all parties involved. I would also like to draw your attention to the Decision re-entered by the IOC Disciplinary Commission in Athens dated 21 August 2004, a copy of which is attached for your reference and in particular Paragraphs 8 and 9. A literal interpretation suggests that the IOC decided that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations against Ms Thanou and referred the matter to the IAAF. The matter therefore was concluded, for the reasons explained in Paragraph 5.b above and it does not give you the right, legal or moral, to re-examine the matter and base possible sanctions on a matter which has already been dealt with.

7. Further, we would also like to state that an attempt to exclude Ms Thanou from the forthcoming Olympiad will deemed to be discriminatory. The evidential analysis, of which we reserve the right to make use of before the appropriate Courts of Law, unequivocally indicates that athletes with serious anti-doping violations [i.e. admission of use of prohibited substances], have been given the right to participate in the next Olympiad. We do not wish to make use of the names here, but we are certain beyond reasonable doubt that you are aware of the names in question. Notwithstanding any other arguments on the issue, it is our contention that it is the IOC itself which violates the Olympic Charter and brings the Movement into disrepute, by discriminating against Ms Thanou and by simply trying to apply double standards. With respect, this offends against fairness and justice and sends the wrong message to society. We must make it absolutely clear here, that Courts of Law would not and can not tolerate actions like the one proposed by the IOC. It would be a serious mistake if the IOC arrived at the wrong conclusion that the Courts of Law would not interfere in this situation. Despite the fact that certain regulations of sporting governing bodies attempt to exclude the resolution of a private dispute before national courts of law, it is submitted that where an error of law and/or injustice have occurred, immunisation from judicial intervention may not so easily be achieved. Under English law, an attempt to exclude the courts from their effort to interpret the law is considered to be against public policy. To this effect, Lynskey J has argued in the past: "The parties can, of course, make a tribunal or council the final arbiter on quotations of fact. They can leave questions of law to the decision of a tribunal, but they cannot make it the final arbiter on a question of law." Similarly, the Hellenic Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights afford protection for the individual.

8. Furthermore, you would, no doubt, recall that we wrote to the President of the IOC twice last year and also earlier this year regarding the issue of the gold medal in the Sydney Olympiad and the upgrade of Ms Thanou to the 1st place. In previous communications we kindly asked for a solution to this situation and we stressed unequivocally that such matters must be resolved without any further delay and preferably after consultation with the interested parties. Unfortunately, our numerous requests have been ignored and no solutions were offered. Instead, we find ourselves in the, rather, awkward position of being informed as to our client's IOC related matters from the press.

9. We have been monitoring the situation very carefully and throughout the last 18 months we have collected information and evidence, regarding the IOC's position on the matter. In relation to the Sydney gold medal, there is evidence to suggest that the IOC must hand the gold medal from the Sydney Olympiad to Ms Thanou. Previous IOC statements have suggested that the IOC would follow suit with the IAAF. As there are no legal grounds for refusing the medal, natural justice and due process dictate that the gold medal must be handed to Ms Thanou.

10. In relation to Ms Thanou's participation in the next Olympiad, we would like to inform you that a file with evidence has also been established and along with the interpretation of the current regulations, leaves no doubt as to Ms Thanou's eligibility in the forthcoming Olympiad. Yet, it is quite astonishing, save to state embarrassing, that the IOC President's public comments centre around the matter which arose out of the Athens Olympiad, almost 4 years ago. We must state, with respect, our disapproval as 4 years after the events in Athens, the IOC President appears to bring forward issues [i.e. Balco, insinuations that Ms Thanou might not be "clean", etc.] that have been dealt with by different sporting governing bodies, an independent Court of Arbitration for Sport and a Director of Public Prosecutions of an independent nation. Needless to say, that the IOC President, with respect, endangering the Lausanne Agreement whose existence came into force after a lengthy legal procedure and the parties' wishes to terminate what you referred to them, with the Decision rendered by the IOC's Disciplinary Commission on the 21 day of August 2004. This, no doubt, forms the basis of an allegation that the President of the IOC brings the Movement into disrepute. There is no need for us to remind you of the decided cases that support our arguments.

11. We would not proceed further with the analysis of the evidence, but we reserve the right to make use of it at the appropriate time and forum. We hope, however, that the matter could be concluded immediately, so any further embarrassment for the Olympic Movement could be avoided, especially prior to the commencement of the next Olympiad. We would kindly urge you to consider very carefully the consequences of the continuation of what appears to be a personal vendetta. We would also like to put you on notice as to the discussions taken behind close doors at the Hilton Hotel in August 2004 in Athens and the specific threats directed against the athletes and their, at the time, legal representative, regarding the surrender of their accreditations. We must state that the conversation had been recorded and documented and as it gives rise to criminal liability, it would become available as evidence before the appropriate forums. For this reason, the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Hellenic Criminal Justice system, is being copied in this correspondence. We must state that we consider the above threats to be in breach of the Hellenic Criminal Code and as the alleged offence took place on Hellenic soil and the victims were Greek citizens, jurisdiction will be assumed immediately.

12. For the reasons stated above, we unequivocally deny all the facts as they appear in your letter of 25 July 2008 and for the reasons explained above. We must urge you to consider the breaches of natural justice and due process based on our analysis. Further we must also urge you to consider that there is no legal or moral ground to exclude Ms Thanou from the next Olympiad. No new evidence has been presented against her, no allegations have been put forward, with certainty and legal clarity and no time limit or an opportunity to counter a hypothetical decision against her has been provided. The IOC cannot proceed with a decision against Ms Thanou, without Ms Thanou being able to counter the evidence against her. This, we submit, is extremely unfair and violates the Olympic Charter and its principles. We would be pressed hard to stop ourselves from reminding you of the wording of the Olympic Charter which clearly states that: "According to the Olympic Charter, established by Pierre de Coubertin, the goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play." Your attempt, to exclude Ms Thanou from the next Olympiad, will violate the principles of friendship, solidarity and fair play and it will seriously discriminate against her. Much rests on this.

13. Finally, we would expect your response to the two issues [i.e. Ms Thanou's participation in the next Olympiad and the handing of the Sydney gold medal to her] by return fax or e-missive at close of business on Monday 4 August 2008. Should the IOC decide to review any of the above issues and rule against Ms Thanou, we would like to put you on notice, that we are now instructed to proceed with all necessary actions, legal and otherwise, to safeguard Ms Thanou's interests and reputation from any further harm. These actions will be directed not only against the IOC as a sporting governing body, but also against certain IOC individuals. We would also like to put you on notice that no decision can be taken against Ms Thanou, prior to Ms Thanou being able to examine the evidence, if any, against her and also counter it. Such decision to exclude her from the next Olympiad will have no legal grounds, it will violate the Olympic Charter, it will bring the Olympic Movement into disrepute, it will constitute an abuse of power and discrimination against an athlete who has qualified successfully according to the rules and it will breach the European Convention on Human Rights.

We trust that this is in order.

Yours faithfully

Dr Gregory Ioannidis