CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11073 & CAS 2025/A/11400 — Thomas Setodji v. International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA)

"Setodji" · CAS upheld a ten-year ban and financial sanctions against a French tennis player found to have fixed multiple ITF matches for Grigor Sargsyan's criminal network.

What happened in Setodji

Thomas Setodji, a French professional tennis player (career-high ATP Singles Ranking 794), was charged by the ITIA with 11 breaches of the 2017 and 2018 Tennis Anti-Corruption Program (TACP) relating to four ITF matches played between July 2017 and May 2018. The charges arose from Belgian and French criminal investigations into an Armenian-Belgian match-fixing network led by Grigor Sargsyan ('GS'), convicted by a Belgian court on 30 June 2023. The ITIA alleged that Setodji contrived or attempted to contrive match outcomes (Sections D.1.d), facilitated betting (D.1.b), and failed to report corrupt approaches (D.2.a.i). An Anti-Corruption Hearing Officer (AHO), Professor Richard McLaren, issued a Preliminary Decision on 6 November 2024 rejecting all procedural objections, and an Award on 1 April 2025 imposing a ten-year ban (1 April 2025 – 31 March 2035), a USD 20,000 fine, and recovery of EUR 5,500 in illicit gains. Both parties appealed to CAS: Setodji sought to set aside or reduce the sanctions; the ITIA sought to add one further breach relating to Match 4. The consolidated CAS panel conducted a full de novo review, heard witnesses on 27 November 2025, and confirmed the AHO's findings on liability and sanction. The case is significant for its treatment of ECHR Article 6 in tennis disciplinary proceedings, the use of criminal investigation evidence, and the attribution of undisclosed phone numbers to a player.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11073

On 15 July 2024, the ITIA sent Setodji a Notice of Major Offense charging 11 breaches of the 2017/2018 TACP across four matches. The Player elected a hearing before AHO Professor Richard McLaren. On 6 November 2024, the AHO issued a Preliminary Decision rejecting all procedural objections, including challenges to jurisdiction, the April 2018 phone download, privacy rights, delay, and the August 2024 phone seizure. A merits hearing was held on 10–11 February 2025. On 1 April 2025, the AHO issued the Appealed Decision: ten-year ineligibility (1 April 2025 – 31 March 2035), USD 20,000 fine, and EUR 5,500 recovery of illicit gains; all charges established except the D.1.b facilitation charge for Match 4. On 29 April 2025, Setodji filed CAS 2025/A/11073 appealing the decision. On 6 May 2025, the ITIA filed CAS 2025/A/11400 seeking to add the Match 4 D.1.b breach. The proceedings were consolidated on 12 May 2025. A CAS hearing was held on 27 November 2025 in Lausanne.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11073

• A professional tennis player is bound by the TACP merely by entering or participating in an ITF Event, regardless of any separate consent argument, and the Player's signature of the PWS on 11 January 2017 and 15 December 2017 constituted valid acceptance of the TACP.
• Disciplinary proceedings under the TACP fall within the civil limb, not the criminal limb, of Article 6 ECHR; the in dubio pro reo principle and criminal procedural protections do not apply, consistent with ECtHR jurisprudence in Mutu and Pechstein v Switzerland and Ali Rıza and Others v Turkey.
• The applicable standard of proof for a Corruption Offense under Section G.3 of the TACP is preponderance of the evidence (greater than 50% probability), and adopting this lower standard than in criminal proceedings does not violate procedural public policy, as confirmed by the Swiss Federal Tribunal in SFT 4A_362/2013 and SFT 4A_486/2022.
• The Preliminary Decision and the Appealed Decision are inseverable components of a single substantive adjudication; an appeal directed at the Appealed Decision implicitly encompasses the findings of the Preliminary Decision, and the Panel may review both without excessive formalism.
• Undisclosed phone numbers saved in GS's phones under variations of the Player's name, corroborated by the presence of one number as a deleted contact on the Player's Personal Phone and by GS's established methodology of distributing SIM cards, were more likely than not used by the Player for covert match-fixing communications.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel conducted a full de novo review under Article R57 of the CAS Code. On the ECHR, it followed ECtHR and SFT authority holding that sports disciplinary proceedings are civil, not criminal, in nature, and that a CAS panel seated in Switzerland must nonetheless ensure Article 6(1) civil-limb guarantees; it found those guarantees satisfied given the nine-month AHO procedure, the Player's opportunity to be heard, and the full CAS appeal curing any prior defects. On the standard of proof, the Panel applied the TACP's preponderance standard, noting the inherently concealed nature of corruption justifies reliance on circumstantial evidence. The Panel rejected the sponsorship explanation as wholly uncorroborated: no messages, no brand, no terms, and no explanation for why the arrangement never materialised. It found the ITIA's evidence reliable, dismissing the Player's generic challenges to witness credibility and alleged cherry-picking as unsubstantiated, particularly since the Player failed to produce any exculpatory material he could have retrieved. On phone attribution, the Panel found the combination of GS's handwritten notebook, multiple phones saving numbers under 'Seto' variants, the deleted contact on the Personal Phone, and GS's established SIM-card distribution methodology collectively established on the balance of probabilities that the Player used the Phones ending with #55, #83, and #26. On sanctions, the Panel applied the Sanctioning Guidelines, placing culpability in Category A (multiple offenses over a protracted period) and impact in Category 2, yielding a Category A2 starting point of ten years, with no mitigating factors and the aggravating factor of multiple completed TIPP trainings.

Why Setodji matters in CAS jurisprudence

Setodji consolidates CAS jurisprudence on three fronts: (1) it reaffirms that only the civil limb of ECHR Article 6 applies to tennis disciplinary proceedings, following Mutu/Pechstein and Ali Rıza, and that a full CAS appeal cures any prior procedural defects; (2) it confirms that the TACP preponderance-of-evidence standard does not offend procedural public policy per SFT authority; and (3) it provides detailed guidance on attributing undisclosed phone numbers to a player through GS's SIM-card distribution methodology, building on the Mitjana Award in the same match-fixing network.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2024/A/10295 & CAS 2024/A/10313 (Mitjana Award, 7 January 2025) CAS 2021/A/8531 CAS 2020/A/6950 CAS 2017/A/5003 CAS 2008/A/1630 Mutu and Pechstein v Switzerland, ECtHR Applications Nos 40575/10 and 67474/10, 2 October 2018

Frequently asked questions about Setodji

What was the Setodji CAS case about and what was the outcome?

Thomas Setodji, a French professional tennis player, was found to have breached the Tennis Anti-Corruption Program by contriving, facilitating betting on, and failing to report corrupt approaches in connection with three ITF matches in 2017 and one in 2018, as part of Grigor Sargsyan's criminal match-fixing network. The CAS panel confirmed the AHO's sanction of a ten-year period of ineligibility running from 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2035, a USD 20,000 fine, and recovery of EUR 5,500 in illicit gains. Both the player's appeal seeking to set aside the decision and the ITIA's appeal seeking an additional breach finding for Match 4 were addressed in the consolidated award.

Does ECHR Article 6 criminal limb apply to ITIA disciplinary proceedings under the TACP?

No. The CAS panel in Setodji held that ITIA disciplinary proceedings fall within the civil limb of Article 6 ECHR only, consistent with the ECtHR's judgments in Mutu and Pechstein v Switzerland (2 October 2018) and Ali Rıza and Others v Turkey (28 January 2020). As a result, the in dubio pro reo principle, the privilege against self-incrimination, and other criminal procedural protections do not apply. The panel further held that any procedural defects in prior proceedings were cured by the full de novo CAS appeal, at the conclusion of which both parties confirmed their right to be heard had been respected.

How did the Setodji panel attribute undisclosed phone numbers to the player?

The panel found it more likely than not that the Player used three undisclosed numbers — a French number (Phone ending with #55), a Dutch number (Phone ending with #83), and a Nigerian number (Phone ending with #26) — based on the combination of: GS's handwritten notebook listing those numbers under variations of 'Seto'; multiple GS phones saving them under 'Seto.fr', 'Seto.ngn', and 'Setodji'; the Phone ending with #55 appearing as a deleted contact on the Player's own Personal Phone; communications from those numbers coinciding with the Player's tournament presence; and GS's established methodology of distributing SIM cards to players to avoid detection, confirmed by depositions of other players including Mr Jankovits and Mr Okala.

What standard of proof applies in ITIA match-fixing cases and how was it applied in Setodji?

Section G.3 of the TACP requires the ITIA to establish a Corruption Offense by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning a greater than 50% probability that the alleged fact is established. The Setodji panel confirmed this standard, noting that the Swiss Federal Tribunal in SFT 4A_362/2013 and SFT 4A_486/2022 held that applying this lower standard than in criminal proceedings does not violate procedural public policy. The panel applied the standard to both direct and circumstantial evidence, emphasising that the inherently concealed nature of corruption justifies reliance on circumstantial evidence, and that the Player bore a duty to contribute to the administration of proof by presenting evidence in support of his defence.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.