In March 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf on World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Bahraini Athlete Marius Kimutai after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

Following notification the Athlete timely admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The AIU deems that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional. Because he had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form he received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 12 April 2024 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 28 March 2024.

CAS 2023/O/9505 World Athletics v. Russian Athletic Federation & Ms. Ekaterina Guliyev

Related case:

CAS 2016_A_4486 IAAF vs Ekaterina Poistogova
April 7, 2017

Ms Ekaterina Guliyev (born Zavyalova, divorced Poistogova) is a Turkish international-level athlete who represented Russia until 2021, inter alia, at the 2012 London Olympic Garnes, where she won the silver medal in the 800 meters competition.

Previously the Athlete was sanctioned on 7 April 2017 for 2 years by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for the use of the prohibited substances Erythropoietin (EPO) and Oxandrolone.

In 2016, Professor Richard McLaren issued two reports about systemic doping in Russia. These reports identified a significant number of Russian athletes who were involved in, or benefitted from, the doping schemes and practices that he uncovered.

Hereafter in January 2019 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) recovered the internal database of the Moscow Laboratory (LIMS). Following investigation of allegations of organized doping practices, and in particular of the LIMS, WADA provided international federations with investigation reports on the athletes implicated in these organized doping practices.

These investigation reports revealed that the prohibited substances Androstatrienedione, Boldenone and Prasterone (dehydroepiandrosterone, DHEA) with a high T/E ratio had been established in the 2 samples of the Athlete Ekaterine Guliyev provided in July 2012 .

Consequently in July 2022 World Athletics reported new anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for the use of these prohibited substances. In March 2023 World Athletics referred the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that two official samples were listed in the London Washout Schedules as belonging to the Athlete, which would date from 17 July 2012 and 25 July 2012. This would prove that the Athlete was part of a doping programme.

In this regard, in accordance with the information contained in this schedule, in the leadup to the 2012 London Olympic Games, the Athlete would have been using up to three prohibited substances. Furthermore two unofficial samples of the Athlete were listed in the Moscow Washout Schedules from July-August 2013.

RusAF did not submit an answer or any other written submissions containing requests for relief.

The Athlete invoked the principle of res judicata and asserted that this is a revision of her previous case. Further she disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by WADA, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence provided by the Parties and determines that:

• The Athlete's res judicata argument is dismissed.
• The Athlete's samples provided on 17 July 2012 and on 25 July is evidence of the Athlete's use of prohibited substances.
• Accordingly the Athlete committed multiple anti-doping rule violations and these shall be considered as one single violation.
• The 2 year period of ineligibility imposed on the Athlete on 7 April 2017 must be credited against any period of ineligibility to be imposed in this case.
• The Athlete was part of a sophisticated doping scheme, namely the washout testing program in advance of the 2012 London Olympic Games.
• There are aggravating circumstances present in this case that justify the imposition of the maximum sanction allowed.
• Fairness requires that the Athlete's results are disqualified from 17 July 2012 to 20 October 2014.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 28 March 2024 that:

1.) The Request for Arbitration filed on 16 March 2023 by World Athletics against the Russian Athletics Federation and Ms. Ekaterina Guliyev (born Zavyalova, divorced Poistogova) is partially upheld.

2.) Ms. Ekaterina Guliyev (born Zavyalova, divorced Poistogova) is found guilty of an antidoping rule violation under Rule 32.2(b) of the IAAF Competition Rules 2012-2013.

3.) Ms. Ekaterina Guliyev (born Zavyalova, divorced Poistogova) is sanctioned with a Period of Ineligibility of four (4) years starting from the date of this Award, with credit to be
given for the two -year period oflneligibility imposed on her in the Final Award in CAS 2016/A/4486 IAAF v. Ekaterina Poistogova, which was already served.

4.) All the competitive results obtained by Ms. Ekaterina Guliyev (born Zavyalova, divorced Poistogova) from 17 July 2012 until 20 October 2014 are disqualified, with all the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served separately to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne 90% jointly by the Russian Athletics Federation and Ms. Ekaterina Guliyev (born Zavyalova, divorced Poistogova) and 10% by World Athletics.

6.) The Russian Athletics Federation and Ms. Ekaterina Guliyev (born Zavyalova, divorced Poistogova) shall jointly pay an amount of CHF 4,000 (four thousand Swiss Francs) to World Athletics as contribution to its legal costs and other expenses incurred in the present proceedings.

7.) All other and further requests of reliefs are dismissed.

CAS 2023/O/9505 World Athletics v. Russian Athletic Federation & Mr. Nikolay Chavkin

In 2016, Professor Richard McLaren issued two reports about systemic doping in Russia. These reports identified a significant number of Russian athletes who were involved in, or benefitted from, the doping schemes and practices that he uncovered.

Hereafter in January 2019 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) recovered the internal database of the Moscow Laboratory (LIMS). Following investigation of allegations of organized doping practices, and in particular of the LIMS, WADA provided international federations with investigation reports on the athletes implicated in these organized doping practices.

These investigation reports revealed that the prohibited substance Methyltestosterone had been established in the 2 samples of the Athlete Nikolay Chavkin provided in July 2012.

Consequently in June 2022 World Athletics reported anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for the use of this prohibited substance. In March 2023 World Athletics referred the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that two official samples were listed in the London Washout Schedules as belonging to the Athlete, which would date from 4 July 2012 and 17 July 2012. This would prove that the Athlete was part of a doping programme.

In this regard, in accordance with the information contained in these schedules, in the leadup to the 2012 London Olympic Games, the Athlete had used a prohibited substance.

RusAF did not submit an answer or any other written submissions containing requests for relief.

The Athlete denied that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation and asserted that he had been tested before without issues. Further he disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by WADA, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence provided by the Parties and determines that:

• The Athlete's samples provided on 4 July 2012 and on 17 July 2012 is evidence of the Athlete's use of a prohibited substance.
• Accordingly the Athlete committed multiple anti-doping rule violations and these shall be considered as one single violation.
• The Athlete was part of a sophisticated doping scheme, namely the washout testing program in advance of the 2012 London Olympic Games.
• There is no evidence that the Athlete was knowingly involved in the Russian doping scheme.
• There are aggravating circumstances present in this case that justify the imposition of a more severe sanction.
• Fairness requires that the Athlete's results are disqualified from 4 July 2012 to 3 January 2015.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 March 2024 that:

1.) The Request for Arbitration filed by World Athletics against the Russian Athletics Federation and Mr. Nikolay Chavkin is partially upheld.

2.) Mr. Nikolay Chavkin is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 32.2(b) of the IAAF Competition Rules 2012-2013.

3.) Mr. Nikolay Chavkin is sanctioned with a Period of Ineligibility of two (2) years and six (6) months starting from the date of this Award.

4.) All the competitive results obtained by Mr. Nikolay Chavkin from 4 July 2012 until 3 January 2015 are disqualified, with all the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served separately to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne 90% jointly by the Russian Athletics Federation and Mr. Nikolay Chavkin and 10% by World Athletics.

6.) The Russian Athletics Federation and Mr. Nikolay Chavkin shall jointly pay an amount of CHF 4,000 (four thousand Swiss Francs) to World Athletics as contribution to its legal costs and other expenses incurred in the present proceedings.

7.) All other and further requests of reliefs are dismissed.

In November 2023 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter Chris Kennedy after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylphenidate (Ritalinic Acid).

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. The Sports Tribunal of New Zealand rendered a decision based on the written submissions of the Parties.

The Athlete admitted the use of the substance and asserted that it was used out-of-competition, 3 days before the competition. He claimed that he was entitled to coach clients in powerlifting during the provisional suspension because they were not competitive athletes, nor subjected to the Rules.

DFSNZ contended that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and accepted that the violation was not intentional. It rejected the Athlete's explanations regarding his coaching of clients during the provisional suspension.

DFSNZ established that at least one client was member of the New Zealand Powerlifting Federation. Also it established that this client had recently participated as powerlifter in a competition.

In view of the evidence the Tribunal concludes that the Athlete's violation was not intentional. Furthermore the Tribunal deems that the Athlete breached the provisional suspension through coaching clients.

Therefore the Tribunal decides on 25 March 2024 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the decision.

In November 2023 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the archer Robert Knight after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Metoprolol. After the positive test the Athlete made an application for a TUE, yet this application was rejected.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand.

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. He explained that he had used Metoprolol as prescribed medication for his diagnosed condition and that he was unaware that this medication contained a prohibited substance.

He asserted that his doctor knew that he was a competitive archer. Previously in 2010 he had discussed the anti-doping rules with her and she has had assisted in his TUE application.

DFSNZ accepted that the violation was not intentional. Nevertheless it deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

The Tribunal agrees that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction. The Panel determines that there was no evidence that the Athlete's doctor was an expert in sports medicine and that this was the basis on which he relied on her medical advice.

Therefore the Tribunal decides on 5 April 2024 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 November 2023.

2022 Anti-Doping Testing Figures / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2024

Contents:

• Executive Summary - pp. 2-9 (7 pages)
• Laboratory Report - pp. 10-39 (30 pages)
• Sport Report - pp. 40-155 (116 pages)
• Testing Authority Report - pp. 156-279 (124 pages)
• ABP Report-Blood Analysis - pp. 280-320 (41 pages)

Report Highlights:

• A 6.4% increase in the total number of samples (including urine, non-ABP blood and dried blood spot samples) analyzed and reported into ADAMS in 2022 (256,770) vs. 2021 (241,430); 

• An increase in the total percentage of AAFs year on year; 

• An increase in the total number of samples analyzed and reported by most WADA-accredited laboratories and WADA-approved laboratories into ADAMS in 2022 vs 2021. 

• An increase in the total number and percentage of non-ABP blood and DBS samples analyzed in 2022.  

• An increase of 1.4% in the number of ABP blood samples analyzed in 2022. 

• An increase in the total number of AAFs and % AAF for ERAs [including erythropoietin (EPO) and other EPO-receptor agonists], GHRFs and GC/C/IRMS tests in 2022.  

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has published its 2022 Testing Figures Report (2022 Report), which summarizes the results of all the samples WADA-accredited laboratories analyzed and reported in WADA’s Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS) in 2022. 

The 2022 Report – which includes an Executive Summary and sub-reports by Laboratory, Sport, Testing Authority and Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) Blood Analysis – includes in- and out-of-competition urine samples, blood and ABP blood data, and the resulting Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs) and Atypical Findings (ATFs). 

In September 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf on World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Uzbek Athlete Farida Soliyeva after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium.

Following notification the Athlete timely admitted the violation, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The Athlete explained that in March 2023 she had used Ripronate (Meldonium) capsuls without a prescription. Further she demonstrated with medical documents that in late March 2023 after consultation she had received Meldonium injections for her diagnosed condition.

The AIU deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. Because she had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form she received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 8 April 2024 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 September 2023.

In March 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Kennedy Cheboror. The AIU deemed that the Athlete had 3 Wherabouts Failures within a 12 month period:

• a Missed Test and Filing Failure on 6 November 2023;
• a Missed Test and Filing Failure on 28 November 2023;
• a Missed Test and Filing Failure on 27 December 2023.

Although the Athlete submitted his explanations to the AIU the Whereabouts Failures were recorded. In any case the Athlete did not file a request for an adminstrative review.

Following notification the Athlete gave a timely admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU. Furthermore he signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violation and Acceptance of Consequences Form.

The Athlete did not challenge the first and third Whereabouts Failures. Regarding the second Whereabouts Failures he asserted that his management had failed to change his Whereabouts information he had requested.

Therefore the AIU decides on 4 April 2024 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 March 2024.

Related cases:

• World Athletics 2020 WA vs Maria Guadalupe González Romero
  July, 30, 2021
• CAS 2019_A_6319 Maria Guadalupe Gonzalez Romero vs IAAF
  July 2, 2020
• IAAF 2018 IAAF vs María Guadalupe González Romero
  May 9, 2019
  
  

On 9 May 2019 the IAAF (now: World Athletics) Disciplinary Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Mexican Athlete María Guadalupe González Romero after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Trenbolone.

In First Instance the Sole Arbitrator deemed that the explanation together with the evidence produced by the Athlete were not convincing, contradicting and unreliable. Consequently her explanation was rejected for lack of credibility since she failed to establish that her violation was not intentional.

In June 2020 the Athlete appealed with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). However on 2 July 2020 the CAS Panel confirmed the Appealed IAAF Decision of 9 May 2019. During the CAS hearing the Athlete acknowledged that she had provided false statements and evidence.

Thereupon in July 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported a new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for Tampering because of the false statements, fabricated evidence and false documents she had provided to the AIU.

Consequently the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decided on 30 July 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. This new sanction shall run consecutively to the period of ineligibility already imposed on the Athlete until 15 November 2022, thus starting on 16 November 2022 until 15 November 2026.

Hereafter in September the Athlete appealed the Tampering Decision with CAS. She requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Tampering Decision and to annul or reduce the imposed sanction.

Regarding the preliminary and procedural issues raised by the Athlete the Panel is confident that the present proceedings has been conducted with full respect for the principles of legality and the right to be heard. In particular, the Athlete's multiple procedural requests and objections have all been fully considered.

Furthermore the Panel assessed and addressed the following issues:

• Is the Evidence of Tampering in the Presence/Use Proceedings irrebuttable?;
• Did the alleged Tampering take place during a Doping Control process?;
• What are the implications of the other evidence relating to the Tampering Charge?;
• Ne bis in idem / res judicata: are the Tampering Proceedings unnecessary and abusive?;
• Other Arguments of the Appellant; and
• Sanctions.

Accordingly the Panel concludes:

• There was no breach of natural justice affecting the CAS Presence/Use Award dated 2 July 2020 and therefore pursuant to Article 3.2.5 of the 2019 ADR the factual findings of lying and falsification of evidence in this decision constitute irrebuttable evidence against the Athlete of these facts;
• The falsification of evidence referred to in the Notice of Charge occurred within the Doping Control process;
• The Athlete is guilty of conduct which subverts the Doping Control process within the meaning of Article 2.5 of the 2019 ADR through the presentation of false evidence in the Presence/Use proceedings with the intention of deceiving the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal.
• The charge of an ADRV for Tampering has been established.
• The principles of ne bis in idem and res judicata have no application to the determination of the Tampering Charge or its sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 December 2023 that:

1.) The appeal of Maria Guadalupe Gonzalez Romero is dismissed.

2.) The decision rendered by the World Athletics' Disciplinary Tribunal on 30 July 2021 is confirmed.

3.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by the Maria Guadalupe Gonzalez Romero, which is retained by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

4.) Maria Guadalupe Gonzalez Romero shall pay to World Athletics a contribution in the amount of CHF 6,000 (six thousand Swiss Francs) toward its legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.

5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2023/ADD/62 International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF) v. Lidiia Hunko

Ms Liddiia Hunko is a Ukrainian Athlete, competing in the Women's monobob event at the Beijing 2022 Olympic Winter  Games.

In February 2022 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone.

The Athlete admitted the violation, accepted a provisional suspension and consequences. She assumed that contaminated supplements had caused the positive test result.

Accordingly the ITA decided on 22 July 2022 that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and that her results obtained at the Beijing Olympic Games are disqualified.

Thereupon the case was referred to the International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF) for continuation of the case. In November 2022 the Athlete failed to accepted the sanction of 3 years proposed the IBSF.

Ultimately in May 2023 the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure.

In this proceedings the Athlete failed to respond. Previously in her submissions the Athlete had denied that she ever had used prohibited substances and argued that she was tested before without issues.

The Athlete refused to plead guilty for a violation she never had committed. Further she disputed the process and the integrity of the Anti-Doping Authorities in view of State-sponsored doping programms.

Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Arbitrator determines that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 26 September 2023 that:

1.)The request for arbitration filed on 31 May 2023 by the International Testing Agency (ITA) on behalf of the International Bobsleigh & Sekeleton Federation (IBSF) is upheld.

2.) Ms. Lidiia Hunko is found to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation pursuant to Article(s) 2.1 (and/or 2.2) of the IBSF Anti-Doping Rules.

3.) Ms. Lidiia Hunko is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years in accordance with Article 10.2.1 of the IBSF Anti-Doping Rules, starting from the date of this Award.

4.) Ms. Lidiia Hunko shall receive credit for the period of Provisional Suspension served from 21 February 2022 against the period of ineligibility imposed by this Award.

5.) All individual competitive results of Ms Lidiia Hunko from and including the date of sample collection (14 February 2022) are disqualified with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, awards, points and prizes pursuant to Article 10.10 of the IBSF Anti-Doping Rules.

6.) (…).

7.) (…).

8.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.