Joe Cassar, Secretary of the Malta Olympic Committee has denied giving anyone any information on how to circumvent the official procedures for the sale of tickets for the Sochi winter Olympics.

He was giving a formal reaction through his lawyers to the decision of the Ethics Commission of the International Olympic Committee where it said that he had, through his actions tarnished the reputation of the Olympic Movement.

In his statement, Mr Cassar said the Commission seemed to have arrived to this conclusion on the basis of two factors, namely on the allegation that he agreed to discuss ATR contracts for (the Wnter Olympics in) Sochi when it was clear that the interlocutors where trying to circumvent the process; and by explaining how the interlocutors could actually get around the process.

He strongly denied any wrong-doing on his part in this matter and said he was rejecting 'in the most ample way' the conclusions mentioned above.

Dr Edward Zammit Lewis, writing on behalf of Mr Cassar, said:
"The facts are the following:

1. Our client never knew that the interlocutors did not have good intentions.  He was informed that they wanted to speak about the possibility of becoming an ATR and it was with that frame of mind that our client went to this meeting and entered into this conversation. Furthermore the representatives gave our client false names; cards and made reference to a false webpage (which was actually found online) which seemed to be regular.
2. In fact at the said meeting the interlocutors stated that they were ready to pay GBP 60,000 to act as the official ATR for the Winter Olympic Games to be held in Sochi.  In fact, the MOC had already received similar offers (of much lesser amounts) in this regard and therefore the offer in question was interesting to the MOC in the light of the amount of the offer involved which would be entirely re-invested for the benefit of sports in Malta; It is important to note that our client never asked for any funds. Our client never negotiated prices of tickets or anything of this sort and it was the interlocutors who came up with the price and our client never questioned it or try to increase it in anyway.
3. In this respect our client explained to the interlocutors that to act as ATR would mean entering into various complex agreements with the IOC and the relative Organising Committee of the Winter Olympics in Sochi.  Our client in fact directed the interlocutors to speak to the competent persons in this respect. At no point did Mr Cassar take  responsibility to sign any agreement of any sort and in any case this would have been something that would have to be discussed and approved at executive level.
4. Therefore this shows that the meeting was held in the light of these people requesting information on how to become an official ATR of the MOC and nothing more.
5. When asked regarding the mark-ups an ATR would be entitled to when selling the tickets, our client replied that he thought that there would be a threshold of 20% and that one cannot just decide on a mark-up. In fact, it is actually provided for in the relative official conditions that mark ups cannot exceed 20%. When asked whether the prices of the ATR’s are checked on, our client replied that if the prices are specifically advertised then the prices would be checkable whereas to his knowledge there would also be the possibility of package deals where the specific price ticket would be incorporated in the whole package.  It is therefore quite clear that our client was not in any way trying to sell tickets to the interlocutors. Our client in no way ever suggested to these representatives to effect mark ups which are higher than the thresholds imposed by the IOC. This shows that our client was not giving information on how to circumvent the official procedures;
6. The above shows that there was absolute no wrong-doing by our client. ATR’s are vetted, screened and recognised by the International Olympic Committee and the National Olympic Committees have every right to chose their ATR and receive compensation for their appointment.
7. Furthermore, in the email wherein our client sent the said contracts, our client specifically states that the MOC would like to know who the ultimate investor was so that they could run a check on him and his company.  Our client further goes on and states that “Please understand that dealing with the IOC is a very serious and important thing and we surely cannot afford to be associated with an unknown to us”. This shows that our client’s intentions were always lawful and in no way did he want to by-pass any rules.
8. Finally our client wishes to point out that he was never given the full transcript or the video of the conversation. This was of utmost importance to our client as it would have given him a better standing so as to rebut the allegations being put against him.
9. Our client reserves his rights at law in connection to the conclusions reached by the Ethics Commission."