In August 2017 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the basketball player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance terbutaline in a concentration above the WADA threshold. After 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 gave a prompt admission about the violation and explained with medical evidence that he suffered from asthma since childhood and used a prescribed inhaler. At age 28 his asthma symptoms decreased, he didn’t apply for a TUE and didn’t know his inhaler contained a banned substance. He didn’t mention his asthma medication because he didn’t use his inhaler during the seven-day period noted on the Doping Control Form;

DFSNZ accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the presence of terbutaline in the Athlete’s sample could be explained by his use of his inhaler to treat asthma symptoms. DFSNZ asserted that the Athlete’s conduct was negligent rather than reckless, but was more than simple or normal carelessness and showed significant disregard his obligations.

Considering the circumstances in this case the Tribunal is unanimously satisfied on balance that the Athlete has established that there was nog significant fault or negligence on his part in committing the anti-doping violation. Therefore the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand decides on 8 November 2017 to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 19 May 2017.

In February 2017 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Dutch tennis player Jake Mak for refusing or failing to submit to sample collection without compelling justification after notification.

The Doping Control Officers reported that the Athlete at the Doping Control Station refused repeatedly to provide a blood sample. Instead of a blood sample he consistently offered to provide a urine sample, which request was refused on several occasions and finally allowed and collected.

After notification the Athlete filed a statement with evidence in his defence and he was heard for the ITF Independent Tribunal. The Athlete explained with medical evidence and witness statements that he suffers from fainting seizures due to his phobia of giving blood.

The Tribunal accepts that the athlete did have a genuine anxiety about giving blood and finds that he failed to seek a treatment for his condition over de years, nor did he consult his doctor as to what he should do in the situation that he had to provide blood for any reason.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the Athlete is not a doper and a cheater and finds that the Athlete had a genuine reason for his refusal to provide a blood sample. However his refusal was not sufficient enough to refuse the blood sample collection because the detection of some prohibited substances a blood sample is required instead of a urine sample.

The Tribunal concludes that the Athlete refused to provide a blood sample without compelling justification in all the circumstances and that he also acted without significant fault or negligence. Therefore ITF Independent Tribunal decides on 7 November 2017 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 24 February 2017.

CAS 2017/O/4980 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) vs. Russian Athletic Federation (RusAF) & Svetlana Vasilyeva

• Athletics (race walking)
• Doping (blood doping based on the ABP)
• CAS jurisdiction under IAAF Rule 38.3
• Applicable law
• Applicable sanction in case of aggravating circumstances
• Fairness exception applicable to the disqualification of results

1. Where a national federation is suspended by IAAF, the latter is not in a position to conduct a hearing in a doping case. Against this background, pursuant to Rule 38.3 of the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR), IAAF can take over the responsibility for coordinating the relevant disciplinary proceedings regarding an international-level athlete and refer directly the matter to the CAS for a hearing subject to an appeal to CAS in accordance with Rule 42 IAAF ADR. In this regard, where the proceedings are based on a request for arbitration for the conduct of a first instance hearing and do not involve an appeal against a decision rendered by a sports-related body, they are considered as ordinary arbitration proceedings, within the meaning, and for the purposes, of the CAS Code. However, in accordance with Rule 38.3 IAAF ADR, these proceedings are handled in accordance with CAS rules applicable to the appeal arbitration procedure without reference to any time limit for appeal.

2. Pursuant to the legal principle of tempus regit actum, procedural matters are governed by the regulations in force at the time of the procedural act in question. With respect to the rules applicable to the substantive aspects of the case, subject to the possible application of lex mitior, substantive aspects shall be governed by the anti-doping regulations in force at the time of the alleged violations, i.e. the 2012-2013 IAAF Rules in the particular case. The rules in force at the time of the first sample taken shall be applied.

3. The starting point for the length of the ineligibility period under the applicable 2012-2013 edition of the IAAF Rules is two years’ ineligibility. Pursuant to CAS case law, aggravating circumstances may justify the imposition of a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction of a two-year ineligibility. However, the words “up to a maximum of four (4) years” do not mean that a period of ineligibility of four years must be imposed in every case in which aggravating circumstances are present. The appropriate period of ineligibility should be determined taking into account the gravity of the aggravating circumstances and the particular circumstances of the case. A single example of aggravating circumstances may sometimes warrant the maximum period, while another time multiple examples may call for a lesser penalty only. The fact that the athlete’s career appears to have been built on blood doping over a five years period shows the existence of a doping plan or scheme. Blood doping offences are repetitive and sophisticated by their nature. These aggravating circumstances justify a maximum ineligibility period of four years.

4. As to the disqualification of results, CAS panels have deemed that Rule 40.8 in the 2012-2013 IAAF Rules also includes a fairness exception, even though not explicitly mentioned therein, or at least that it cannot be excluded that a general principle of “fairness” may be applied in deciding whether some results are to be left untouched even in the absence of an explicit rule to this effect. Pursuant to Rule 40.8 of the 2012-2013 IAAF Rules, the disqualification of results is the main rule, and applying fairness would be an exception. The findings that an athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and that his/her anti-doping rule violation can be set on the date of the collection of the first relevant sample, mean that his/her competitive results obtained in the period between this date and the date of collection of the last relevant sample must be disqualified unless fairness requires otherwise. This period may exceed 4 years. Yet, where there is no proof that the athlete has used prohibited substances or methods during 2 consecutive years, fairness requires that the athlete’s results in this period remain untouched.

In December 2016 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete Svetlana Vasilyeva after an IAAF expert panel concluded unanimously in October 2016 in their Joint Expert Opinion that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that she used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping.

This conclusion of the IAAF expert panel is based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 20 July 2011 until 27 July 2016 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).

Previously the Athlete submitted an explanation to the IAAF about the circumstances surrounding the collected samples.
The Athlete indicated that her blood values could be explained:

• by the intensive training period on hight;
• by illnesses that she suffered;
• by using a hypoxic ten;, and
• by blood loss in menstruation periods.

However after consideration the expert panel rejected the Athlete’s explanations in their Second Joint Expert Opinion, issued in December 2016.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Because the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF) was suspended by the IAAF the case was referred in February 2017 to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. Although duly informed about the arbitral proceedings RusAF and the athlete failed to file any written submission.

The IAAF asserted that, based on the opinion of the expert panel, the Athlete’s ABP profile constitutes reliable evidence of blood doping in the period between 2011 and 2016 with aggravating circumstances. It requested the Sole Arbitrator Panel to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete including disqualification of her results.

Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied by the assessment of the Athlete's ABP that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation, i.e. the IAAF succeeded to establish that the abnormal values in the Athlete's ABP were caused by blood doping. The Athlete has failed to prove by a balance of probability that the abnormal values of samples 2, 7, 8, 9, and 17 in her ABP resulted from training and residing at high altitude, illnesses, or menstruation.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete has engaged in continuous, intentional, and severe violations of the anti-doping regulations which have led to the setting of an ineligibility period of four years based on aggravating circumstances. It has been established that the Athlete's ABP shows abnormalities indicating that the Athlete was in blood doping cycles at least in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2016.

The Athlete did not commit the anti-doping rule violation by accident or even on a single occasion. Instead she has been engaged in a long-lasting doping scheme with an aim to gain advantage of her unlawful practice. However there is no proof that the Athlete has used prohibited substances or methods in 2014 and 2015 even though she gave altogether six samples during said years. Fairness requires that the Athlete's results in this period remain untouched.

Based on the above and considering, in particular, that RusAF or the Athlete have not submitted any claims or arguments with respect to the disqualification of results, the Sole Arbitrator considers it justified to disqualify all of the Athlete's results obtained between 18 October 2011 (first abnormal result) and 14 July 2013 (end of the U23 European Athletics Championships) as well as between 24 May 2016 (Sample 17 with abnormal values) and 12 December 2016.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 August 2017 that:

1.) CAS has jurisdiction to hear this dispute and the claims submitted to it are admissible.

2.) Mw Svetlana Vasilyeva has violated Rule 32.2(b) of the 2012-2013 IAAF Rules.

3.) A period of ineligibility of four (4) years is imposed on Ms Svetlana Vasilyeva starting from 13 December 2016.

4.) All competitive results of Ms Svetlana Vasilyeva from 18 October 2011 through to 14 July 2013 and from 24 May 2016 through to 12 December 2016 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, profits, prizes, and appearance money).

5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne in their entirety by the Rusesian Athletic Federation.

6.) Ms Svetlana Vasilyeva is ordered to pay CHF 3,000.00 (three thousand Swiss Francs) to the International Association of Athletics Federations as a contribution towards its legal fees and expenses. The Russian Athletic Federation and Ms Svetlana Vasilyeva shall bear their own legal fees and expenses.

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

CAS 2016/O/4883 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. Russian Athletic Federation (ARAF) & Mr. Petr Trofimov

• Athletics (race walking)
• Doping (abnormalities detected in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP))
• CAS jurisdiction under Rule 38.3 IAAF ADR
• Applicable law
• Establishment of a violation of “use” of a prohibited substance
• Period of ineligibility based on aggravating circumstances
• Fairness exception applicable to the disqualification of results

1. Where a national federation is suspended by IAAF, the latter is not in a position to conduct a hearing in a doping case. Against this background, pursuant to Rule 38.3 of the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR), IAAF can take over the responsibility for coordinating the relevant disciplinary proceedings regarding an international-level athlete and refer directly the matter to the CAS for a hearing subject to an appeal to CAS in accordance with Rule 42 of IAAF ADR. In this regard, where the proceedings are based on a request for arbitration for the conduct of a first instance hearing and do not involve an appeal against a decision rendered by a sports-related body, they are considered as ordinary arbitration proceedings, within the meaning, and for the purposes, of the CAS Code. However, in accordance with Rule 38.3 of the IAAF ADR, these proceedings are handled in accordance with CAS rules applicable to the appeal arbitration procedure without reference to any time limit for appeal.

2. In accordance with the principle of tempus regit actum, those regulations in force at the time of the alleged acts apply, with respect to the substantive aspects of the case. In applying this principle, ABP cases are generally treated as a single anti-doping rule violation based on samples collected over an extended period of time. In accordance with Rule 49.1, and given that in the particular case the athlete’s alleged anti-doping rule violation would have occurred in 2009-2013, this arguably results in the application of Chapter 3 of the 2012 IAAF Rules (in force as of 1 November 2011) to substantive aspects of the case, unless an earlier version of the IAAF Rules can be shown to apply as lex mitior. Additionally, a ‘fairness exception’ inheres the 2012 IAAF Rules regarding assessment of sanctions. Accordingly, application of the 2012 IAAF Rules, which read literally do not require that sanctions be fair or proportionate, does not prejudice the athlete’s case relative to the 2015 IAAF Rules (which include a fairness exception in explicit terms). Procedural matters are governed by regulations in force at the time of the procedural act in question, i.e., the 2016-2017 IAAF Rules.

3. Use of the ABP Analytical Model to demonstrate a high statistical likelihood of blood doping qualifies as a “reliable method” for the purposes of Rule 33.3. While it is true that an ABP analysis by its nature provides indirect evidence of doping practices, such evidence nevertheless can predict, with a high level of statistical confidence, abnormalities attributable to the use of doping agents – sufficient for a finding under the relevant standard of “comfortable satisfaction” that a rule violation has occurred. The IAAF Rules make clear that it is “not necessary” to establish “intent, fault, negligence or knowing use” in order to establish a violation of Rule 32.2(b). Accordingly, the rule can be understood to impose a strict liability on athletes for doping violations.

4. Rule 40.6 of the 2012 IAAF Rules imposes a period of ineligibility of four years (higher than the standard sanction of two years contemplated in Rule 40.2) for a violation of, inter alia, Rule 32.2(b), where the anti-doping rule violation is accompanied by “aggravating circumstances”. The use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method on multiple occasions and the commission of a “doping plan or scheme” constitute such aggravating circumstances.

5. Consistent with CAS jurisprudence on proportionality and the overriding requirement of fairness in interpreting and assessing sanctions under the IAAF Rules and Swiss law, it is not appropriate to disqualify all results of the athlete corresponding to the entire period encompassed by the latter’s eighteen ABP blood samples. This conclusion is buttressed by the absence of any abnormalities or anti-doping rule violations detected in respect of sixteen of the eighteen samples so collected.

In November 2016 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete Petr Trofimov after an IAAF expert panel concluded unanimously in June 2016 in their Joint Expert Opinion that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that she used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping.

This conclusion of the IAAF expert panel is based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 13 August 2009 until 16 May 2015 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).

Previously the Athlete submitted an explanation to the IAAF about the circumstances surrounding the collected samples. The Athlete indicated that his blood values could be explained: by kidney problems; by intensive training period on high altitude; and by using a hypoxic tent. However after consideration the expert panel rejected the Athlete’s explanations in their Second Joint Expert Opinion, issued in July 2016.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Because the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF) was suspended by the IAAF the case was referred in February 2017 to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. Although duly informed about the arbitral proceedings ARAF and the athlete failed to file any written submissions.

The IAAF asserted that, based on the opinion of the expert panel, the Athlete’s ABP profile constitutes reliable evidence of the use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method in the period between 2009 and 2015 with aggravating circumstances and requested the Sole Arbitrator Panel to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete between 2 and 4 years including disqualification of his results.

Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator accepts the conclusions of the First and Second Expert Panel Opinion namely that it is highly likely that the Athlete's ABP profile results are attributable to blood doping as defined and sanctioned under the IAAF Rules. Accordingly, he considers that the lAAF has discharged its burden of establishing a violation of Rule 32.2(b) of the IAAF Rules.

The Sole Arbitrator is satisfied that samples 1 and 11 of the Athlete's ABP profile indicate, to his comfortable satisfaction, the use of prohibited substances. Moreover in light of the dates on which these two samples were collected, the evidence indicates artificial augmentation of red blood cell mass in proximity to competitions spaced nearly four years apart from each other. Accordingly, pursuant to the operation of Rule 40.6 of the IAAF Rules, aggravating circumstances, justify the imposition of a period of ineligibility of four years for the Athlete's violation of Rule 32.2(b).

The Sole Arbitrator finds that fairness requires that it is not appropriate to disqualify all results of the Athlete corresponding to the entire period encompassed by the Athlete's 18 ABP blood samples. This conclusion is buttressed by the absence of any abnormalities or anti-doping rule violations detected in respect of 16 of the 18 collected samples. As a result the Sole Arbitrator finds that all competitive results of the Athlete from 13 August 2009 to 18 May 2013, inclusive, shall be disqualified.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 17 May 2017 that:

1.) CAS has jurisdiction to hear this dispute and the claims submitted to it are admissible;

2.) Mr. Petr Trofimov has violated Rule 32.2(b) of the IAAF Rules;

3.) A period of ineligibility of four (4) years is imposed on Mr. Petr Trofimov commencing from 3 November 2016;

4.) All competitive results obtained by Mr. Petr Trofimov from 13 August 2009 through 18 May 2013, inclusive, are disqualified, with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes);

5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne in their entirety by the Russian Athletics Federation, which shall bear its own costs,

6.) Mr. Petr Trofimov shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay to the International Association of Athletics Federations the amount of CHF 3,000 (three thousand Swiss Francs) as a contribution toward the legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

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

Related cases:

CAS 2017_A_4987 Maxim Vylegzhanin vs FIS
August 31, 2017

CAS 2017_A_5436 Maxim Vylegzhanin vs IOC
November 30, 2018

Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof Richard McLaren on 18.07.2016 and 09.12.2016, showed detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected during the Olympic Winter Games Sochi 2014. The reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample.

As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. In the context of this Commission the IOC decided that all the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establish whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated.

Maksim Vylegzhanin is a Russian Athlete competing in the Men's Skiathlon and Classic Cross Country Skiing Events at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IOC Disciplinary Commission has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete and considered the facts and arguments submitted by the Parties.

Therefore, pending the issue of a motivated decision, the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 9 November 2017 that the Athlete Maksim Vylegzhanin:

1.) is found to have committed anti-doping rule violations pursuant to Article 2 of The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, in 2014;

2.) is disqualified from the events in which he participated upon the occasion of the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, in 2014, namely:

(i) the Men’s 50km Freestyle Cross Country Skiing Event, in which he ranked 2nd and for which he was awarded a silver medal, a medallist pin and a diploma;
(ii) the Men’s 4x10km Cross Country Skiing Event, in which he ranked 2nd and for which he was awarded a silver medal, a medallist pin and a diploma;
(iii) the Men’s Skiathlon 15 + 15 km Mass Start Cross Country Skiing Event, in which he ranked 4th and for which he was awarded a diploma;
(iv) The Men’s Team Sprint Classic Cross Country Skiing Event, in which he ranked 2nd and for which he was awarded a silver medal, a medallist pin and a diploma;

3.) has the medals, the medallist pins and the diplomas obtained in the above-mentioned Events withdrawn and is ordered to return the same to the International Olympic Committee.

4.) The Russian Team is disqualified from the Men’s 4x10km Cross Country Skiing Event. The corresponding medals, medallist pins and diplomas are withdrawn and shall be returned to the International Olympic Committee

5.) The Russian Team is disqualified from the Men’s Team Sprint Classic Cross Country Skiing Event. The corresponding medals, medallist pins and diplomas are withdrawn and shall be returned to the International Olympic Committee

6.) The International Ski Federation is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.

7.) Maksim Vylegzhanin is declared ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games.

8.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.

9.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the International Olympic Committee, as soon as possible, of the medals, the medallist pins and the diplomas awarded in connection with Men’s 50km Freestyle Cross Country Skiing Event and Men’s Skiathlon 15 + 15 km Mass Start Cross Country Skiing Event to Maksim Vylegzhanin and the medals, the medallist pins and the diplomas awarded in connection with the Men’s 4x10km Cross Country Skiing Event and Men’s Team Sprint Classic Cross Country Skiing Event to the members of the Russian Team.

10.) This decision enters into force immediately.

Related cases:

CAS 2017_A_4986 Evgenia Shapovalova vs FIS
August 31, 2017

CAS 2017_A_5439 Evgenia Shapovalova vs IOC
November 30, 2018

CAS OG_2018_03 | 15 Russian athletes and coaches vs IOC
February 9, 2018

Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof Richard McLaren on 18.07.2016 and 09.12.2016, showed detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected during the Olympic Winter Games Sochi 2014. The reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample.

As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. In the context of this Commission the IOC decided that all the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establish whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated.

Evgeniya Shapovalova is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women's Cross Country Skiing Event at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IOC Disciplinary Commission has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete and considered the facts and arguments submitted by the Parties.

Therefore, pending the issue of a motivated decision, the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 9 November 2017 that the Athlete Evgeniya Shapovalova:

1.) is found to have committed anti-doping rule violations pursuant to Article 2 of The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, in 2014;
2.) is disqualified from the events in which she participated upon the occasion of the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, in 2014, namely: the Women’s Sprint 1.5km Freestyle Cross Country Skiing Event, in which she ranked 28th;
3.) The International Ski Federation is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
4.) Evgeniya Shapovalova is declared ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games.
5.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
6.) This decision enters into force immediately.

Related cases:

CAS 2017_A_5437 Alexey Petukhov vs IOC
November 27, 2018

CAS 2017_A_4985 Alexey Petukhov vs FIS
August 31, 2017

Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof Richard McLaren on 18.07.2016 and 09.12.2016, showed detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected during the Olympic Winter Games Sochi 2014. The reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample.

As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. In the context of this Commission the IOC decided that all the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establish whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated.

Alexey Petukhov is a Russian Athlete competing in the Men's Cross Country Skiing Event at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games.
The IOC Disciplinary Commission has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete and considered the facts and arguments submitted by the Parties.

Therefore, pending the issue of a motivated decision, the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 9 November 2017 that the Athlete Alexey Petukhov:

1.) is found to have committed anti-doping rule violations pursuant to Article 2 of The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, in 2014;
2.) is disqualified from the events in which he participated upon the occasion of the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, in 2014, namely:
the Men’s Sprint 1.5km Freestyle Cross Country Skiing Event, in which he ranked 8th and for which he was awarded a diploma;
3.) has the diploma obtained in the above-mentioned Event withdrawn and is ordered to return the same to the International Olympic Committee.
4.). The International Ski Federation is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) Alexey Petukhov is declared ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games.
6.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
7.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the International Olympic Committee, as soon as possible, of the diploma awarded in connection with the Men’s sprint 1.5km Freestyle Cross Country Skiing Event to Alexey Petukhov.
8.) This decision enters into force immediately.

Related cases:

CAS 2017_A_4998 Julia Ivanova vs FIS
August 31, 2017

CAS 2017_A_5438 Julia Ivanova vs IOC
October 5, 2018

Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof Richard McLaren on 18.07.2016 and 09.12.2016, showed detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected during the Olympic Winter Games Sochi 2014. The reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample.

As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. In the context of this Commission the IOC decided that all the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establish whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated.

Yuliia Ivanova is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women's Classic Cross Country Skiing Events at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IOC Disciplinary Commission has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete and considered the facts and arguments submitted by the Parties.

Therefore, pending the issue of a motivated decision, the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 9 November 2017 that the Athlete Yuliia Ivanova:

1.) is found to have committed anti-doping rule violations pursuant to Article 2 of The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, in 2014;

2.) is disqualified from the events in which she participated upon the occasion of the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, in 2014, namely:

(i) the Women’s 10km Classic Cross Country Skiing Event, in which she ranked 17th;
(ii) the Women’s 30km Freestyle Mass Start Cross Country Skiing Event, in which she ranked 30th;
(iii) the Women’s 4x5km Cross Country Skiing Event, in which she ranked 6th and for which she was awarded a diploma;
(iv) The Women Team Sprint Classic Cross Country Skiing Event, in which she ranked 6th and for which she was awarded a diploma;

3.) Has the diplomas obtained in the above-mentioned Events withdrawn and is ordered to return the same to the International Olympic Committee.

4.) The Russian Team is disqualified from the Women’s 4x5km Cross Country Skiing Event. The corresponding diplomas are withdrawn and shall be returned to the International Olympic Committee.

5.) The Russian Team is also disqualified from the Women’s Team Sprint Classic Cross Country Skiing Event. The diplomas are withdrawn and shall be returned to the International Olympic Committee.

6.) The International Ski Federation is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.

7.) Yuliia Ivanova is declared ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games.

8.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.

9.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the International Olympic Committee, as soon as possible, the diplomas awarded in connection with the Women’s 4x5km Cross Country Skiing Event and the Women Team Sprint Classic Cross Country Skiing Event to the members of the Russian Team.

10.) This decision enters into force immediately.

Doping Education Status In Kenya : Evaluation Of Knowledge, Attitudes And Practice Of Doping Among Elite Kenyan Athletes / Michael Boit, Paul Dimeo, Vincent Onywera , Gitahi Theuri , Festus Kiplamai , Selina Sigei, Danielle Stewart , Lorcan Cronin. - Kenyatta University ; University of Stirling. - Stirling : University of Stirling, 2014. - Report compiled for the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)

Contents:

LITERATURE REVIEW
- Background
- Diet and lifestyle factors
- Historical and physiological explanations
- Environmental influences
- Athlete motivation
- Global Flow
- ‘Migration’ of African athletes
- Drug Use: Sport and Non-Sport
- Recreational drug use in Kenya
- Knowledge and use of plants
- Kenyan khat/ miraa
- Drugs in African Sport
- Participants
- Procedures
- Measures
RESULTS
- Knowledge of drug testing procedures
- Knowledge of procedures following a positive test
Common sources of doping information
- Sports Associations
- Preferred websites for drug-free sport information
- Other resources and services
Evaluation of knowledge about doping
- Prohibited substances and methods
- Testing procedures
- Athlete rights and Responsibilities
- Knowledge of supplements
Attitudes of Kenyan athlete’s towards doping
Evaluation of doping among Kenyan athlete’s
- Athletes’ perceptions of the extent of doping
- Association between doping and social drugs
- Purposeful use of performance enhancing drugs
- Knowledge of fellow athletes using P.E.D’s
- Use of nutritional supplements bought over-the-counter
Use of supplements by Kenyan athletes
- Extent of use of herbal and nutritional supplements
- Types of supplements used
- Reasons for use of supplements
Athletes suggestions about managing doping in their sport
- Specific drug-free issues or testing needed by athletes
- Means by which you would prefer to be alerted to news on drug-free sport
DISCUSSION
- Knowledge of doping among Kenyan athletes
- Attitudes of Kenyan athletes towards doping
- Doping practices among Kenyan athletes
- Use of herbal and nutritional supplements
- Factors that influence the doping practices of Kenyan athletes
- Sources of doping information used by Kenyan athletes
SUMMARY
- Demographic information
- Assessment of doping knowledge
- Attitudes of Kenyan athletes towards doping
- Doping practices among Kenyan athletes
- Factors that influence doping practices amongst Kenyan athletes
- Sources of doping information used by Kenyan athletes
- Effect of age, gender and experience on athlete’s attitudes and doping practices
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES
APPENDIX

Feedback Report On The Anti-Doping Policy Advice Project : Country Assessment Report Kenya / Vincent O. Onywera. - Paris
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2015

Contents:

1.0 Introduction
1.2 Political dynamics and Anti-doping Legal Frameworks in favor of anti-doping in Kenya
1.3 Compliance between national regulation and the provisions of the Convention, its annexes and appendixes
3.0 Studies on Anti-Doping in Kenya
3.1 Rating of knowledge of Drug testing procedures
3.2 Athlete’s personal rating of knowledge of procedures following a positive test
3.3 Athletes’ exposure to in and out of competition
3.4 Athletes’ perception about the fairness of Drug testing procedures
3.5 Common Sources of Doping Information among sports associations
3.6 Most common anti-doping websites
3.7 Prohibited Substances and Methods
Knowledge of Doping substances among Kenyan athletes
3.8 Knowledge of Athletes’ rights and responsibilities
4.0 Findings from sports associations
4.1 Kenya’s Ministry of Sports, Culture and the arts
5.0 The situation in East Africa
5.0.1 Professional area of specialization of respondents from East Africa
5.0.2 Knowledge on drug testing procedures among anti-doping stakeholders in East Africa
5.0.3 Knowledge among anti-doping stakeholders in East Africa on the procedure that follows if and when results are positive
5.0.3 Sources of information on drug-free sport by stakeholders in East Africa
5.0.3 Websites used by stakeholders in East Africa to keep up to date with drug-free sport
6.0 Observations and Challenges
7.0 Recommendations
8.0 Recommendations following the workshop on Training of Trainers (TOTSs) on anti-doping within the East African community (EAC) held on from 2nd- 5th march 2015 at Kenyatta University, Kenya