CAS 2007/A/1348 IAAF v/ Bulgarian Athletics Federation & Vania Stambolova & Venelina Veneva

• Athletics (sprint; high jump)
• Doping (testosterone)
• Scientific reliability and reliance of the IRMS testing
• Standard of proof
• Right of the IAAF to request an IRMS analysis in the absence of an elevated T/E ratio and/or an abnormal steroid profile
• Limit of IAAF’s discretion

1. An IRMS analysis is an independent and sufficient basis upon which to determine that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred with respect to the exogenous administration of testosterone.

2. In order to succeed in rebutting the presumption set out in the IAAF Rules, the Respondents have to prove the veracity of their arguments by a balance of probability. Proof by balance of probability means that the CAS panel needs more than unfounded scientific hypotheses in order to accept the rebuttal of presumption and to invalidate results provided by a WADA-accredited laboratory which clearly show the presence of a prohibited substance.

3. Effective anti-doping policies require target testing conducted by the Anti-Doping Organisations. Target testing does not only entail selection of a specific athlete, who will undergo a doping control at a specific time and place; it may also include the choice of the type of sample (urine or blood) to be collected or even the type of the analysis to be applied in order to detect a prohibited substance. There is no rule which would prohibit IAAF from requesting an IRMS analysis on a sample that is owned by IAAF itself.

4. Like any other right, IAAF’s discretion as regards target testing is not to be abused and target testing should be used for anti-doping reasons only. However, a missed test and/or a missed test evaluation procedure is/are an objective indication that the concerned athlete might have been using prohibited substances which justifies the decision to request IRMS analysis of the athlete’s samples. Furthermore, even without such justification, the balancing of interests between the international federation’s role in representing all competing athletes equally and fairly may require the IAAF to order that additional laboratory analytical work be carried out in order to ensure the protection of the integrity of the sport and instil confidence in athletes who are competing fairly that their representative organisation has acted in the best interests of the sport.

In March 2007 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Bulgarian Athlete’s Vania Stambolova and Veneline Veneva after their A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone with a T/E ratio above the WADA threshold.

In spite of the analysis reports of the WADA-accredited laboratory in Lausanne and the opinions of Dr. Saugy and Professor Ayotte, the Board of Administration of the Bulgarian Athletic Federation (BFLA) concluded and decided on 18 July 2007 that the test results of the athletes were inconclusive and insufficient for proving the use of prohibited substances as ground for sanctioning the athletes.

Hereafter in August 2007 the IAAF appealed the BFLA decision of 18 July 2007 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The IAAF requested the Panel to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the two athletes for committing an anti-doping rule violation.

The IAAF argued that the athlete’s samples clearly demonstrated the presence of exogenous testosterone including that there is clear and sufficient evidence of the IRMS analysis. The athletes explanation that the ingestion of Tribulus Terrestris would give rise to a positive IRMS result or an adverse analytical finding must be dismissed.

The BFLA and the Athletes contended that the IRMS analytical results do not exclude completely endogenous origin and may be explained with the effect of the medicines, food supplements and the use of Bulgarian sunflower oil.

Taking into account the level of independence, qualification and experience of each expert, the Panel has reached their conclusions in this case concerning the scientific issues raised by the parties.
The Panel is satisfied that the lAAF has completely satisfied its burden of proof with respect to a doping offence committed by Ms Stambolova and Ms Veneva under the lAAF Rules. On the other hand, the Athletes have failed to demonstrate any deviations from the International Standard of Laboratories or that the results could be explained by reasons other than administration of exogenous testosterone.

Proof by balance of probability means that the Panel needs more than unfounded scientific hypotheses in order to accept the rebuttal of presumption and to invalidate results provided by a WADA-accredited laboratory which clearly show the presence of a prohibited substance. As a result, the analysis findings were not attributable to Tribulus Terrestris and/or contraceptive tablets and/or sunflower oil and the Lausanne Laboratory was not obliged by any applicable rule to obtain a full steroid profile before reaching a conclusion on the adverse analytical finding.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 February 2008 that :

1.) The appeal filed on 3 August 2007 by the International Association of Athletics Federation against the decision issued on 18 July 2007 by the Board of Administration of the Bulgarian Athletics Federation is upheld.

2.) The decision issued on 18 July 2007 by the Board of Administration of the Bulgarian Athletics Federation is set aside and nullified.

3.) A suspension of two years is imposed on Ms Vania Stambolova and Ms Venelina Veneva commencing on the date of this decision, less the period of provisional suspension already served.

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

5.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the court office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) paid by the International Association of Athletics Federation, which is retained by the CAS.

6.) The Bulgarian Athletics Federation is ordered to pay to the International Association of Athletics Federation a contribution towards all its costs incurred in connection with the present arbitration procedure in an amount of CHF 5,000 (five thousand Swiss Francs).

CAS 2005/A/989 IAAF vs FFA & Jamel Ahrass

TAS 2005/A/989 IAAF c/Fédération Française d'Athlétisme (FFA) & Jamel Ahrass

On 28 September 2005 the French Athletics Federation (FFA) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligiblility on the Athlete Jamel Ahrass, with 6 months as suspended sanction, after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone related to contamination of his supplements.

Hereafter in December 2005 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) appealed the FFA decision of 28 September 2005 with the Court of Arbitation for Sport (CAS).
The IAAF argued that the FFA decision was not in accordance with the IAAF Rules and requested the Panel to impose a minimum 2 year period of inelgibilility on the Athlete.

The Panel finds that the FFA was not entitled to ignore the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules in this case and had wrongly considered that a low concentraton of the prohibited substance was found in the Athletes samples result from the non intentional of use contaminated supplements as ground for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for sport decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 28 September 2005.

CAS 2005/A/946 IAAF v/ FIDAL & Marco Giungi

On 25 May 2005 the National Judging Commission of the Italian Athletics Federation (FIDAL) decided to close the case against the Athlete Marco Guingi after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrostenedione and 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). Established were exceptional circumstances in this case due to the Athlete non intentially had used contamined supplements.

Hereafter in August 2005 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) appealed the FIDAL decision of 25 May 2005 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The IAAF requested the Panel to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation.

The Athlete requested to dismiss the IAAF appeal because the IAAF had to apply its appeal with the FIDAL Appeals Commission and not with CAS and argued that no sanction had te be imposed on him on the basis of exceptional circumstances.

The Panel finds that under IAAF and FIDAL Rules, IAAF had no right to appeal the FIDAL decision of 25 May 2005 with CAS. Because the IAAF had the right to appeal the FIDAL Commission decision with the Federal Appeals Commission, but did not do so, this case ended when the time limit to make such an appeal expired.

The IAAF therefore did not have the right to make this appeal to CAS. The Panel concludes that, due to lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the appeal filed by the lAAF shall be dismissed.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 March 2006 to dismiss the IAAF appeal of 15 August 2005 against the FIDAL decision of 25 May 2005.

CAS 2004/A/766 IAA.F v/ Athletics Australia & Stuart Lyall

In December 2001 the Australian Athlete Stuart Lyall was arrested on criminal charges for using and trafficking cocaine and ecstasy (methylenedioxymethamphetamine - MDMA). In April 2003 the Athlete pleaded guilty to the criminal charges against him and in May 2003 he was convicted on a number of counts, including the use of cocaine and trafficking ecstasy.

As a consequence of the criminal charges also anti-doping rule violations were reported against the Athlete in September 2003 followed by a number of significant admissions made by the Athlete that substantially shortened the length and lowered the cost of the hearing.

On 20 August 2004 the Athletics Austria Doping Control Tribunal decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for trafficking. On 1 October 2004 the Tribunal decided to reinstate the Athlete immediately due to exceptional circumstances in this case.

Hereafter in December 2004 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) appealed the decision of the Athletics Australia with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The IAAF requested the Panel to set aside the decision of Athletics Australia Doping Control Tribunal of 1 October 2004 and to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The IAAF contended that Athletics Australia has no jurisdiction to consider exceptional circumstances and to allow the Athlete’s early reinstatement.

Considering the IAAF 2000 Procedural Guidelines for Doping Control the Panel concludes that the Athletics Australia Tribunal did not have the power to reinstate the Athlete (ultra vires). In the IAAF Guidelines this power lies exclusively with the IAAF Council only.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 October 2005 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the IAAF on 7 December 2004 is granted.

2.) The AUS decision of 1 October 2004 is amended as follows: Mr Stuart Lyall shall be declared ineligible for life.

3.) All other claims are dismissed.

4.) This award is rendered without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 paid by the IAAF, which is retained by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

5.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

CAS 2004/A/633 IAAF v/ FFA & Mr Chouki

In September 2003 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French Athlete Fouad Chouki after his A and B samples tested positive for prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO) in a high concentration.

On 8 October 2003 the Disciplinary Body of the French Athletics Federation (FFA) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Athlete appealed the decision and on 26 November 2003 the FFA Disciplinary Body of Appeals decided to reform the decision and to impose on the Athlete a 2 year period of ineligibility with 6 months as a suspended sanction. On 31 December 2003 the Tribunal Administratif of Strasbourg rejected the Athlete’s application for an interim order suspending the decision of the FFA’s Appeals Body.

Hereafter in June 2004 both the Athlete and the IAAF filed their appeals with the Court of Aribitration for Sport (CAS).
The IAAF requested the Panel to impose a minimum 2 year period of ineligibility for the use of rhEPO. The IAAF contended that several issues occurred relating to deficiencies in the handling of the anti-doping controls during the world championships in Paris where the Athlete was tested. In case such deficiencies are proven to be well founded, they should affect the application of the sanctions under the IAAF rules.

The Athlete claimed that he was involuntarily injected with rhEPO, as he was unwell and semi-unconscious, after the race in Paris. To support his position, he explained that, while he was transported to the medical centre, he was surrounded by people and felt his veins to be tampered with. At the medical centre, he advised that he was indeed injected (as mentioned in the doping control form) and/or had a perfusion placed in his arm according to a witness.

The Panel finds that the Athlete’s explanations are inconsistent with the declarations made in his proceedings. The Athlete did not establish nor make plausible that he had been injected with EPO during the analysed segment of time. He did not give any credible explanation on how nor when the administration of rhEPO could have occurred.

Based on the totality of the evidence, the Panel concludes that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the IAAF that Mr Fouad Chouki committed a doping offence prohibited by the applicable IAAF Rules and must take responsibility for it.

Therefor the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 April 2005 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the International Association of Athletics Federations on 11 June 2004 is upheld.

2.) The appealed decision issued on 26 November 2003 by the FFA's Disciplinary Body of Appeals ("L'organe disciplinaire d'appel") is set aside.

3.) Mr Fouad Chouki shall be declared ineligible for two years from 19 September 2003.

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

5.) The Award is pronounced without costs, except for the court office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) paid by IAAF which is kept by the CAS.

TAS 2004/A/S64 IAAF c/FFA & Stéphane Desaulty

In July 2003 the Athlete Stéphane Desaulty was arrested for the falsification of medical prescriptions and the purchase of syringes with recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). After his admission he was convicted in November 2003 for 4 months as suspended sanction for forgery.

As a consequence of his admission the French Athletics Federation (FFA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete and on 10 December 2003 the Disciplinary Body of the FFA decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete with 6 months as suspended sanction.

Hereafter in March 2004 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) appealed the FFA decision of 10 December 2003 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The IAAF requested the Panel to annul the FFA decision and to impose a minimum 2 year period of ineligibility due to under the IAAF Rules imposing a suspended sanction is not possible.

The Panel concludes that the IAAF Rules do not allow national federations a margin in imposing their minimum sanctions and rules that a 2 year period of ineligibility must be imposed.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 14 September 2004 to annul the FFA decision of 10 December 2003 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 5 August 2003.

Related case:
CAS 2016_O_4702 IAAF vs ARAF & Maksim Dyldin
January 6, 2017

Mr Maksim Dyldin is a Russian Athlete competing in the Men’s 400m athletics event at the London 2012 Olympic Games.

In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012.

In December 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol).

Previously the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) had decided on 6 January to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for evading, refusing and failing to submit to sample collection in May 2015.

After notification the Athlete submitted that he denied the use of any prohibited substance and that he was already sanctioned by the IAAF from 2015 for evading sample collection. He contended that the IAAF and WADA would have manipulated his samples and would have added prohibited substances in his samples
The Athlete did not file further submissions in his defence nor did he attend the hearing of the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

The Disciplinary Commission finds that there is not the slightest basis for the Athlete’s allegation. A scenario of deliberate spiking is already per se unlikely. It becomes completely implausible in a situation in which the substance found is a metabolite and one which, on top of everything, was not even identified and detectable at the time.

The Commission concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation consistent with the intentional use of a prohibited substance specifically ingested to deliberately improve performance. The fact that the metabolite of a doping substance, which is a “classical” doping substance was found, supports this consideration.

Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 19 April 2017 that the Athlete, Maksim Dyldin:

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXX Olympiad in London in 2012 (presence and/or use, of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen),
2.) is disqualified from the events in which he participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games London 2012, namely, the Men’s 400m event and the Men’s 4x400m relay event, and
3.) has the diploma obtained in the Men’s 4x400m relay event withdrawn and is ordered to return same.
4.) The Russian Federation Team is disqualified from the Men’s 4x400m relay event. The corresponding diplomas are withdrawn and shall be returned.
5.) The IAAF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
6.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
7.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the diplomas awarded to the members of the Russian Federation Team who participated in the Men’s 4x400m relay event.
8.) This decision enters into force immediately.

Related cases:
- CAS 2016_O_4469 IAAF vs ARAF & Tatyana Chernova
November 29, 2016
- CAS 2017_A_4949 Tatyana Chernova vs IAAF
July 18, 2017
- CAS 2017_A_5124 Tatyana Chernova vs IOC
December 4, 2017

Ms Tatyana Chernova is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women’s heptathlon event at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2008 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2008.

In July 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol).

After notification the Athlete submitted that she did not accept the test results. She filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission.

The Disciplinary Commission notes that the Athlete previously already was sanctioned by Rusada on 15 January 2015 for the use of turinabol and hereafter sanctioned in first instance by CAS (CAS 2016/O/4469) in an ABP case.

The Athlete asserted that the McLaren Report, filed by the IOC, does not establish that she committed an anti-doping rule violation and challenged, supported by an expert witness, the validity of the test results.

The IOC justified the filing of the McLaren Report in this case due to it constitute relevant circumstantial evidence supporting the analytical findings: indentifying a specific substance very commonly used in the environment of the Athlete.

The Disciplinary Commission finds that the Athlete and her expert witness did not meet her burden to rebut the presumption according to which the WADA accredited laboratory is presumed to have conducted the analysis in accordance with the ISL and other applicable technical documents. That the substance identified in her samples was oral turinabol is reinforced by the fact that the Athlete was found to have used this very same substance one year later. In this case, she did not attempt to challenge the result. On the contrary, her argument in the further ABP case that her blood results were influenced by the fact that she was using oral turinabol is a direct admission that she has been using that substance, at least in 2009.

Furthermore the fact that the Athlete’s expert witness would have accepted to appear as an expert in these proceedings to challenge the validity of the establishment of the presence of oral turinabol, whilst he had previously appeared in another proceedings to sustain an argument based on the fact that the same Athlete did use the substance in question is, to say the least, troubling. The fact that the issue is considered in two different time periods may make theoretically possible to sustain both positions. However, the Disciplinary Commission observes that this does not reinforce the overall credibility of the expert and of the explanations he has been providing in these proceedings.

The Commission concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation consistent with the intentional use of a prohibited substance specifically ingested to deliberately improve performance. The fact that the metabolite of a doping substance, which is a traditional doping substance was found, supports this consideration.

The Disciplinary Commission, which has now handled multiple cases arising out of the re-analysis of samples collection on the occasion of the 2008 and 2012 Olympic Games, observes that the presence of the metabolites of this particular substance has been established in a remarkably high number of cases. This constitutes an indication that said substance has been in widespread use by athletes, who were doping at that time.

Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 19 April 2017 that the Athlete, Tatyana Chernova:

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad in Beijing in 2008 (presence and/or use, of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen),
2.) is disqualified from the Women’s heptathlon event in which she participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games Beijing 2008,
3.) has the bronze medal, the medallist pin and the diploma obtained in the Women’s heptathlon event withdrawn and is ordered to return the same.
4.) The IAAF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
6.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the bronze medal, the medallist pin and the diploma awarded in connection the Women’s heptathlon event to the Athlete.
7.) This decision enters into force immediately.

Related case:
CAS 2017_A_4944 Yulia Naumova vs CISM & WADA
August 25, 2017

The International Military Sports Council (CISM) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian pentathlon Athlete Iulia Naumova after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Bromantan.

Considering the test results the CISM Discipline Commission concludes that the Russian Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides on 30 November 2016 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 11 August 2016.

All the Athlete's results and medals obtained during 63rd World Military Pentathlon Championship held in Weiner-Neustadt, Austria, are disqualified.

Related cases:
- KNSB 2016 KNSB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2016012 TU1
December 20, 2016
- KNSB 2016 KNSB Preliminary Decision Disciplinary Committee 2016012 TU2
February 16, 2017
- KNSB 2018 KNSB Decision Appeal Committee 2016012 B
May 25, 2018

In February 2016 the Royal Netherlands Skating Association (KNSB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Person filed a statement with evidence and objections in his defence and he was heard for the KNSB Disciplinary Committee.

The Athlete denied the use of prohibited substances and supported by an expert witness he disputed the validity of the test results. The Person asserted that there were irregularities in the laboratory procedures and complained that the laboratory file was incomplete. The Person invoked the principle of equality of arms due to these issuea are harmful for his defence and requested that an independent expert will review this case. The person also argued that his medical condition could have caused a false positive test result.

The Dopingautoriteit and the KNSB argued that no departure from the ISL occurred in this case and that the Person failed to produce evidence in support of his arguments.

In the first preliminary decision of 20 December 2016 the Disciplinary Committee ruled that the test results were valid and rejected the Person’s arguments about a false positive. The Committee granted the Person’s request to appoint an independent expert in order to investigate the case file and the suggested departure of the ISL in the accredited laboratory. Also the Committee ordered the Dopingautoriteit to provide additional information about the laboratory procedures and protocols for the independent expert.
The parties were assign to nominate an independent expert for this matter.

In the second preliminary decision of 16 February 2017 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee decided to appoint the requested independent expert. In spite of the objections submitted by the Dopingautoriteit the Disciplinary Committee finds that the Dopingautoriteit has to provide additional information for the independent expert.

Considering the preliminairy decisions the Dopingautoriteit submitted that it can not and will not provide the additional information about the laboratory procedures and protocols for the independent expert in this case and that all the relevant documents were already in possession of the Disciplinary Committee.

The Disciplinary Committee finds that the Dopingautoriteit's refusal to provide the additional information is harmful and an obstruction for the Person's defence to prove that a departure from the ISL occurred. Due to this obstruction the Committee rules that a fair trail and proper judicial procedure under the ECHR Rules are not longer possible anymore.

Therefore on 21 April 2017 the KNSB Disciplinary Committee decides to dismiss the charge and to acquit the Person.