Alessandro Marcucci





A. Parties

  1. Anton Georgiev (hereinafter referred as to the “Appellant”) was the coach of Ex-Outlaws and Windigo Gaming teams during the dates the bug at issue was triggered.


B. Factual Background

a) Background Facts

  1. Below is a summary of the main relevant facts, as established on the basis of the written submissions filed by the Appellant and the evidence examined in the course of the proceedings and the oral hearing. This background is made for the sole purpose of providing a synopsis of the matter in dispute. Additional facts and allegations found in the Appellant’s written submission and oral hearing may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion that follows. While the Panel has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the Appellant in the present proceeding, it refers in its Decision only to the submissions and evidence it considered necessary to explain its reasoning.
  1. On 4 September 2020, the Esports Integrity Commission (hereinafter referred as to “ESIC”) announced an investigation into an abuse of a bug (hereinafter referred as to the “Spectator Bug”) in the CS:GO’s spectator mode. ESIC together with Mr. Michal Slowinski’s help investigated about the wrongful use of said exploit.
  1. Along with the Statement “Esports Integrity Commission Opens Inquiry into Historical Spectator Bug Exploitation” a Confession Period was granted. This period was foreseen for any offending parties that wanted to come forward ahead of the investigation with an admission of wrongdoing. Said Period opened as of the date of the Statement’s release, 4th of September 2020, and closed on the 13th of September 2020 at 23:00 CET.
  1. Later on, the 28th of September 2020, ESIC issued another Statement “Esports Integrity Commission Findings (Part One of Two) from investigation into CS:GO Spectator Bug Exploitation” announcing the sanction against 37 individuals in relation to the exploitation of the Spectator Bug. Mr. Anton Georgiev was one of the coaches sanctioned, with a ban period of 10 months in which he:
    • Must not actively or passively communicate with the team starting 15 minutes prior to the official match start up until the end of the match;
    • Must not be physically present around the team starting 15 minutes prior the official match start up until the end of the match;
    • Must not be on the game server during official matches;
    • Must not be on the official match channel on the Discord server; and
    • Must not be part of the official map veto process nor be in communication with the team during this process.
  1. The sanction was imposed on account of the following. During the match disputed on date 20 September 2017, along the IEM Oakland 2017 Europe Open Qualifier Tournament, playing Ex-Outlaws team v. hASSeLsNOk team (hereinafter referred as to the “First Match”), the Appellant being the team coach at the time, the Spectator Bug was triggered on Mr. Georgiev’s PC during the first round (pistol round). Although hASSeLsNOk won the first round, Ex-Outlaws were the winners of the whole match.
  1. Then again, on 13 December 2017 during the CSGO.NET Cup 1 Tournament -played in the E-Frag Bootcamp Studio in Belgrade, in the match played by Windigo Gaming v. Tricked (hereinafter referred as to the “Second Match”), once again the Appellant being the team coach at the time, the Spectator Bug was triggered in all rounds (thirty rounds) of the first game. The winning team was Windigo Gaming.

 b) Proceedings before the ESIC Appeal Panel

  1. On the 28th of September 2020 the Appellant wrote an email to Mr. Kevin Carpenter, the Chair of the ESIC Independent Panel.
  1. On said email the Appellant provided with some details regarding the abovementioned Statement, indicating his will to submit a Notice of Appeal. Several photos and two videos were also attached to the mail as evidence.
  1. In due course, the Notice of Appeal was presented on the 30th of November 2020 by Mr. Anton Georgiev.
  2. Further to the Appellant’s request, the latter and ESIC entered into a financial assistance agreement in relation to the relevant appeal deposit.
  3. On date 23 March 2021, the members to sit on the Appeal Panel were notified. As a result, the Panel was formed as follows:
    • Alfonso León Lleó as Chair of this Appeal Panel;
    • Anna Baumann as a Panel member; and
    • James Kitching as a Panel member.
  1. On date 25 March 2021 the Appeal Panel was provided with the written submissions filed by the Appellant up until that stage and proceeded further as duly established in the ESIC Appeals Procedure Code (hereinafter referred as to the “Appeal Procedure Code”).
  1. Moreover, and in accordance with the article C.1 of the Appeal Procedure Code, the Appellant was also informed of the possibility of ESIC submitting a Statement of Reply if deemed necessary.
  1. As of 1 April 2021, no Statement of Reply was filed by ESIC.
  2. A Hearing was set for the 23rd of April 2021.
  1. As a consequence of unforeseen circumstances under which the relevant Hearing could not have been conducted with the necessary parity in the Panel on that date, the Hearing was postponed to the 7th of May 2021.
  1. Under the discretion given by article C.4 to the ESIC Code, on the 24th of April 2021 the Appeal Panel communicated the following evidentiary requests to the Appellant.


As you stated on the Notice of Appeal:

 “[…] You can clearly see that my camera is not moving […] And you can even see that my camera on both sides CT and T is stuck in the same place, that means I didn’t know about this is happening right now […]”

Accordingly, we request from you the videos in which it is visible that you didn’t move the camera in the Windigo Gaming v. Tricked match, played on Lan (as stated from you) on 13th December 2017. In addition to the videos you already submitted. 

The videos proving that you were standing behind the players in the Bootcamp room (E-frag Studio in Belgrade) the whole time in the Windigo Gaming v- Tricked match.

 Regarding the ex-Outlaws v. hASSeLsNOk match played on 20th September 2017, the video proving that you did not move the mouse and you were quite during the bug.

In case you can’t provide us with the abovementioned videos, we would require for the written Statement provided by one of the players in each match:

    • Written Statement provided by any ex-Outlaws’ Player during that match.
    • Written Statement provided by any Windigo Gaming’s Player during that match.”
  1. The Appellant addressed said evidentiary requests along written submissions he filed on the 27th and on the 28th of April 2021.
  2. On 7 May 2021 the Hearing was held by videoconference.


C. Submissions of the parties

  1. The following outline of the parties’ position is illustrative only and does not necessarily encompass every contention put forward along these proceedings. However, the Panel has carefully considered all the submissions made by the parties, even if there is no specific reference to those submissions in the following summaries.

a) The Appellant

  1. The grounds of Appeal, in essence, may be summarized as follows:
    • The Appellant listed one of the three grounds set in article B.1 of the Appeal Procedure Code as the foundation to his Appeal.
    • That was article B.1(iii), imposition a sanction that was unduly excessive as to be unreasonable.
    • The Appellant stated that the sanction was very severe and should be substantially reviewed. His main argument was that at the time the offence took place, he was unaware of the Spectator Bug’s existence. Therefore, he could not abuse nor exploit the bug, since he didn’t even know about its existence.
    • Moreover, he provided evidence for the purpose of proving that he did not act knowingly nor he helped the team to gain an advantage to win the match, since this happened, without him knowing about it.
  1. On the other hand, the Appellant’s submissions, in essence, may be summarized as follows: 
    • Regarding the First Match, disputed on the 20th of September 2017, he stated that despite him moving the mouse during the Spectator Bug episode along it, he did not say anything to the players. Moreover, he adds that the round went on without any suspicious movements (e.g. pre-firing) nor any changes mid-game from his team.
    • When he encountered the Spectator Bug he didn’t say anything to anyone and proceeded to restart the game, rejoining the server.
    • Furthermore, he declares not knowing about any bug when it happened, consequently he didn’t use nor abuse it to gain an advantage to win the game, since he was unaware that it happened to him.
    • Along with the evidence requested from the Appeals Panel, the Appellant submitted a video in which he can be seen moving the camera and pointing towards the whole bomb A’s scenario (Map: Train). The round was disputed and decided in that particular spot of the map.
    • In relation to the Second Match, disputed on date 13th of December 2017, the Appellant provided supporting evidence on the fact that it was played via LAN connection, more precisely at the E-frag Bootcamp Studio, in Belgrade.
    • Additionally, the Appellant contends he was standing behind his team giving them instructions and calls while the match was being disputed.
    • Above that, the Appellant submitted several photos in which it can be seen a big wall standing between the area where the match was being played and his PC setup claiming it would have been impossible for him to move back and forth to give any extra information to his team.
    • Furthermore, the Appellant provided a second video as evidence, in which it can be seen how the camera stops moving from minute 1:54 until the end of the match.
    • Two witness statements were additionally presented as evidence by the Appellant:
      1. The first statement, from “SHiPZ” an ex-Outlaws player, in between the 29th of August 2017 and the 31st of October 2017, and later on, a Windigo Gaming player from the 31st of October 2017 until the 2nd of September 2019. Along said statement, the player affirms the Appellant never delivered any information regarding the position of the enemy team, even more, the team did not even know that he had encountered the Spectator Bug. In addition, he declares that the match v. Tricked was played on LAN while the coach and the team’s CEO were standing behind them during the whole match.
      2. The second statement, from “Bubble” also an ex-Outlaws player in between the 19th of September 2017 and the 31st of October 2017, and later on, a Windigo Gaming player from the 31st of October 2017 until the 1st of November 2019. Along this statement, the player declares that during the v. Ex-Outlaws match, the Appellant did not provide the team with extra information while adding that, in the v. Tricked match the Appellant was standing behind the team and since there was a big wall between the players and the PC setups, it would have been impossible for him to see the screen of his PC.

b) The Esports Integrity Commission

  1. On the other hand, Mr. Ian Smith (on behalf of ESIC as its Integrity Commissioner) submissions along the relevant hearing, in essence, may be summarized as follows:
    • After the evidence filed and the Appellant’s correlation of the facts, Mr. Smith accepts the Appellant’s explanations related thereto.
    • Subsequently, ESIC agrees that the charges against the Appellant were not made out.


D. Admissibility

  1. The Notice of Appeal was filed in compliance with the section “Appeal Process” of the ESIC’s Statement dated on 28th of September 2020 “Esports Integrity Commission Findings (Part One of Two) from investigation into CS:GO Spectator Bug Exploitation” which stated the following:

“Any coach who wishes to contest his guilt may write setting out the grounds of his appeal to the Chairman of the Independent Disciplinary Panel, Kevin Carpenter, at

Full terms and conditions and details of procedure and requirements will be sent to any appellant on request. Any party to an appeal will bear their own costs of appealing, but the Chairman may, in his entire discretion, make an award of costs against the losing party and that may include, if ordered, the costs of the hearing itself including his time or that of any panel member used.”


  1. Moreover, the Notice of Appeal complied with requirements set by article B.3 of the Appeal Procedure Code. Said article provides as follows:

“3. The Notice of Appeal shall only be valid where the Participant has:

(i) Stated the date of the decision against which the appeal is lodged;

(ii) Stated the grounds of appeal relied upon;

(iii) Set out a statement of facts upon which the appeal is based, specifying whether the appeal is against a finding and/or sanction and include any supporting documentation upon which they seek to rely; and

(iv) Be accompanied by a deposit payment of GBP 250, to be paid in cleared funds to the bank account specified in Annex I, which may be refunded if the appeal is successful in whole or in part.”

  1. It follows that the Notice of Appeal is admissible.


E. The “Spectator Bug” and the Offence

  1. The Panel paid particular attention to the fact that the ESIC Integrity Program was not applicable to these proceedings. The Inquiry had the particularity that not all the cases could be resolved by ESIC’s jurisdiction. Therefore, ESIC decided to address this issue with an ad hoc
  2. The Spectator Bug was described by ESIC as a camera error that allowed the coach to see the entire map from a spectator’s point of view, therefore, the coach is able to see his team as well as the enemy team. Moreover, the coach has the possibility to toggle his view, which gives him the opportunity to gather all the information needed to ensure his victory.
  3. ESIC’s decision was to sanction all coaches who had the Spectator Bug triggered in any official competition.
  4. In order to impose the sanction, it was irrelevant whether the bug was actually “exploited” or “used” as an advantage to win the game. The only circumstance in which ESIC decided not to apply a sanction was in the cases where the view was completely blocked by some element on the map, for instance a wall, the floor or a box.
  1. The “Sanctions and Concessions Matrix” (hereinafter referred as to “Matrix”) took into account the extent to which an individual had “exploited” the Spectator Bug.
  1. During the course of these events and in several appeal procedures, Mr. Smith stated that the coach’s inaction in discovering the Spectator Bug on the game amounted to “exploitation” and was the trigger for the application of the sanctions.
  1. The reason behind that was that ESIC could not determine with certainty whether or not the coach had “exploited” the camera error. What it could do was to determine whether the coach had actively taken steps to “distance” himself or herself from the Spectator Bug. Whether or not a coach had taken action was judged on the facts of each case, taking into account all the particularities of each case, and was the key consideration in applying the Matrix.


F. Applicable Law, the “Matrix”

  1. As stated above, ESIC had to utilize an ad hoc sanctioning system in order to deal, as fairly and impartially as possible, with the wave of coaches who had encountered with the Spectator Bug.
  2. The “Standardized sanctions and concessions matrix” section of the ESIC’s Statement published on 28 September 2020 “Esports Integrity Commission Findings (Part One of Two) from investigation into CS:GO Spectator Bug Exploitation” provides as follows:

“ESIC believes that all sanctioning decisions must be proportionate, fair and consistent and we have gone to great lengths to ensure that the calculation of the sanctions imposed on the offending coaches comply with these standards. After modelling numerous options, we adopted the model outlined in Annexure B titled “Sanctions and Concessions Matrix” as being the most appropriate.  

In brief summary, the method utilized by ESIC allows it to:

  1. Identify trends in abuse of the Spectator Bug by analysing data point relevant to “frequency” and “duration” of the abuse;
  1. Create consistent sanctions tiers based on the data within the samples being assessed;
  1. Apply appropriate and proportionate sanctions consistently across the entire data set based on the model;
  1. Apply appropriate and proportionate concessions for defined circumstances (e.g. confessions or assistance with investigation);
  2. Arrive at a net sanction which is consistent, data driven, and objectively ascertainable by reference to the model for each offending party.”
  1. The Panel notes that the section “Demerit Points – Logic and Function” of the Matrix stipulates the following:

“The Matrix functions to attribute demerit points based on the frequency as well as the duration of the abuse of the Spectator Bug. Sanctions are then issued upon the basis of total demerit points, discounted by applicable confessions to produce the results outlined in Annexure A to ESIC’s statement dated 28 September 2020 on the matter.”

  1. Moreover, and as referred to above, in constructing the sanctions component of the Matrix, ESIC accounted for:
    • Frequency of abuse (i.e. the number of cases in which a particular offender triggered the bug); and
    • Duration of the abuse (i.e. the number of rounds in each case in which the offender triggered the bug).
  1. Taking into account all of the above and taking a look at the table from Annexure A of the Statement:
Coach #
Sanction Tier Concessions applied (%) Net ban (months) Team Enemy Team Tournament Date Map Round Start Round End Total rounds triggered


2 Tier 2 0 10 ex-Outlaws hASSeLsNOk IEM Oakland 2017 Europe Open Qualifier 20-sep-2017 Train 0 – 0 0 – 1 1
Windigo Gaming Tricked CSGO.NET Cup 1 13-dic-2017 Inferno 0 – 0 16 – 14



  1. The Appellant’s final sanction along the first-instance proceedings at the origin of this appeal, was calculated as follows by ESIC, using the Matrix:
    • 2 cases of abuse would attribute 2 demerit points to the offending party;
    • More than 20 rounds of abuse would attribute 3 demerit points to the offending party;
    • Resulting in a total amount of 5 demerit points which would fall under Tier 2 Sanction (3 to 5 points). Therefore, the imposition of a 10 months ban period.
  1. It is also worth mentioning that the offender could be given a concession of the sanction if:
    • Confession Prior to Announcement of Investigation (40%);
    • Confession Accepted in Full (25%);
    • Confession Partially Accepted (12,50%);
    • Confession Rejected (0%); and
    • Assistance in Investigation (20%).
  1. No concession was granted to the Appellant.


G. Merits

  1. ESIC understands that each case must be reviewed on its own merits and circumstances and so does this Appeals Panel.
  2. In this respect, taking into account all the evidence presented during these proceedings, ESIC considered the Appellant had demonstrated that he did not maliciously use the Spectator Bug nor did he intentionally exploit it to gain an advantage to beat the opposite team, as stated along the relevant hearing.
  3. As a result thereof, ESIC asserts that the relevant charges having been filed against the Appellant at the origin of these proceedings were not made out, resulting automatically therefore, in the necessary annulment of the sanctions issued along the first-instance proceedings and the appeal being upheld in full.


H. On These Grounds

This Appeals Panel of the Esports Integrity Commission rules that:

  1. In the circumstances of this case, and under article C.10 of the Appeal Procedure Code “The Appeal Panel shall then have the power to: Exercise any power of sanction which the Integrity Commissioner could have exercised, whether the effect is to increase or decrease any penalty, award, order or sanction originally imposed.”, the Panel herein annuls the first-instance decision issued by ESIC and declares fully upheld the appeal.
  2. As a result thereof, the Appellant is immediately free to resume his coaching duties within the esports sector.
  3. With regards to the appeal deposit, no relief shall be ordered as it was subject to a financial assistance agreement between the Parties.
  4. As for the costs, and pursuant to article D.1 of the Appeal Procedure Code, the Panel has full discretion to order what proportion of their costs, which are comprised of the fees (and any legitimate expenses) of each Panel member, each party shall be liable for.
  5. Considering the specific circumstances of this case, the Panel orders that the costs of this appeal procedure shall be borne entirely by ESIC.



Read the full decision here:

Appeal by Anton Georgiev against the decision dated 28th of September 2020 by the Esports Integrity Commission



Appeal Decision Signed by

Anna Baumann, Alfonso Leon Lleo, James Kitching

Appeal Panel

07 May 2021