Related case:
CAS AD 16/05 IOC vs Xinyi Chen
August 18, 2016

Ms Xinyi Chen is a Chinese Athlete competing in the Women’s 100m butterly and the Women’s Freestyle event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 10 August the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ).

On 18 August 2016 the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel decided:
1.) The IOC has established the presence of a prohibited substance in accordance with Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Olympic Games Rio 2016.
2.) The result obtained by the Athlete in the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is disqualified in accordance with Article 9 of the IOC ADR, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
3.) In accordance with Art. 10.2.2 IOC ADR, the matter of the Athlete is referred to FINA to decide on the responsibility for result management in terms of sanctions beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

As a consequence of the anti-doping rule violation committed at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games the FINA Doping Panel decides on 7 December 2016 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 11 August 2016.

Related case:
FINA 2015 FINA vs Vitalii Melnikov
March 13, 2015

On 13 March 2015 the International Swimming Federation (FINA) Doping Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of inelibilility on the Russian Athlete Vitalii Melnikov after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

In April 2016 FINA reported a second anti-doping rule violation against the Russian athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance growth hormone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete did not file a statement in his defence and he waived his right to be heard for the FINA Doping Panel.

Without the Athlete’s statement for his second anti-doping violantion and considering the test results the FINA Doping Panel decides on 8 November 2016 to impose a 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on 22 April 2016.

CAS AD 16/11 International Olympic Committee v. Misha Aloian

Related case:
CAS 2017_A_4927 Misha Aloyan vs IOC
June 16, 2017

Mr. Misha Aloian is a Russian Athlete competing in the Men’s -52kg boxing event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 7 September 2016 the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance tuaminoheptane. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the CAS Anti-Doping Division in November 2016.

The Athlete argued that he bears no fault or negligence and that the amount of substance found in his body did not have a performance enhancing effect. The Athlete asserted that he had used the medication Rhinofluimucil out-of-competition on the advice of his team doctor and that the was advised inaccurately by his doctor.

On the balance of probability the Sole Arbitrator accepts the Athlete’s explanation that he used for his chronic disease a medication containing a prohibited substance on the advice of his team doctor.
However the Sole Arbitrator rules that the Athlete failed in his personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enerters his body.

Therefore the CAS Anti-Doping Division Sole Arbitrator decides on 8 December 2016:

1.) The Athlete is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.1 of the IOC ADR.
2.) The results obtained by the Athlete in the Men’s -52kg boxing event at the Olympic Games Rio 2016, in which he finished 2nd and for which he was awarded a Silver medal, are disqualified with all consequences, including forfeiture of the medal, Olympic diploma and medallist pin.
3.) The Athlete is ordered to return the medal, the diploma and the medallist pin.
4.) The International Boxing Association 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 is requested to ensure full implementation of this decision and secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the medal, the medallist pin and the diploma awarded in connection with the Men’s -52kg boxing event.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/010 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Gabriel Sincraian

Related case:

IOC 2019 IOC vs Gabriel Sincraian
November 23, 2020

Mr. Gabriel Sincraian is a Romanian Athlete competing in the 85 kg Weightlifting event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 12 August 2016 the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete did not respond nor did he file a statement in his defence hereafter.

In November 2016 the CAS Sole Arbitrator finds that the IOC met its burden of proof under Art. 3.1 IOC ADR. The documents adduced by the IOC establish sufficient proof, to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator, that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation under Art. 2 IOC ADR.

Therefore the CAS Anti-Doping Division Sole Arbitrator decides on 8 December 2016:

1.) The Application filed by the IOC is admissible.

2.) The Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

3.) All results obtained by the Athlete in the Olympic Games Rio 2016, including the bronze medal in the Men’s Weightlifting 85 kg event, are disqualified with all consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, diplomas, pins, points and prizes.

4.) The National Olympic Committee of Romania is requested to secure the return to the IOC of the medal, medallist pin, and diploma given to the Athlete.

5.) The responsibility for the Athlete’s results management in terms of sanction and Consequences beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is referred to the International Weightlifting Federation being the applicable International Federation.

With respect to item 4 of previous paragraph, the Sole Arbitrator notes that the National Olympic Committee of Romania is not a party to these proceedings and susceptible to an order made by him. However, the duty to make the return of the items sought by the IOC lies first with the Athlete. The assistance of the NOC is part of its general duty of collaboration with the IOC.

The independent person 2nd report : Richard H. McLaren independent person WADA investigation of Sochi allegations / Richard H. McLaren. - Montréal : World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), 2016

Key Highlights of 2nd Report

Institutionalised Doping Conspiracy and Cover Up

1. An institutional conspiracy existed across summer and winter sports athletes who participated with Russian officials within the Ministry of Sport and its infrastructure, such as the RUSADA, CSP and the Moscow Laboratory, along with the FSB for the purposes of manipulating doping controls. The summer and winter sports athletes were not acting individually but within an organised infrastructure as reported on in the 1st Report.

2. This systematic and centralised cover up and manipulation of the doping control process evolved and was refined over the course of its use at London 2012 Summer Games, Universiade Games 2013, Moscow IAAF World Championships 2013, and the Winter Games in Sochi in 2014. The evolution of the infrastructure was also spawned in response to WADA regulatory changes and surprise interventions.

3. The swapping of Russian athletes’ urine samples further confirmed in this 2nd Report as occurring at Sochi, did not stop at the close of the Winter Olympics. The sample swapping technique used at Sochi became a regular monthly practice of the Moscow Laboratory in dealing with elite summer and winter athletes. Further DNA and salt testing confirms the technique, while others relied on DPM.

4. The key findings of the 1st Report remain unchanged. The forensic testing, which is based on immutable facts, is conclusive. The evidence does not depend on verbal testimony to draw a conclusion. Rather, it tests the physical evidence and a conclusion is drawn from those results. The results of the forensic and laboratory analysis initiated by the IP establish that the conspiracy was perpetrated between 2011 and 2015.

The Athlete Part of Conspiracy and Cover Up

5. Over 1000 Russian athletes competing in summer, winter and Paralympic sport, can be identified as being involved in or benefiting from manipulations to conceal positive doping tests. Based on the information reported to International Federations through the IP to WADA there are 600 (84%) summer athletes and 95 (16%) winter athletes.

London Summer Olympic Games

6. Fifteen Russian athlete medal winners were identified out of the 78 on the London Washout Lists. Ten of these athletes have now had their medals stripped.

IAAF Moscow World Championships

7. Following the 2013 IAAF Moscow World Championships, 4 athletics athletes’ samples were swapped. Additional target testing is in progress.

Sochi Winter Olympic Games

8. Sample swapping is established by 2 female ice hockey players’ samples with male DNA.

9. Tampering with original sample established by 2 [sport] athletes, winners of four Sochi Olympic Gold medals, and a female Silver medal winner in [sport] with physiologically impossible salt readings.

10. Twelve medal winning athletes (including the above 3) from 44 examined samples had scratches and marks on the inside of the caps of their B sample bottles, indicating tampering.

11. Six winners of 21 Paralympic medals are found to have had their urine samples tampered with at Sochi.

Contents:

Chapter 1: Executive Summary of 2nd IP Report Key Highlights of 2nd Report

Chapter 2: Athletes Benefiting from Manipulations and Concealment of Positive Tests

Chapter 3: The Moscow Laboratory and the Disappearing Positive Methodology (“DPM”)

Chapter 4: The Olympic Games Year and London 2012

Chapter 5: IAAF Moscow World Championships and Events of 2013

Chapter 6: Sochi 2014 The XXII Olympic Winter Games

Chapter 7: Samples Swapping After Sochi

iNADO Update (2016) 76 (7 December)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

- iNADO New Members
- iNADO Workshop 2017 - Save the Date - March 12
- Outcomes of WADA ExCo and FB Meetings in Glasgow
- Key Findings iNADO ABP Conference
- European Sport Ministers Support reform Agenda for WADA and for Anti-Doping
- Ask iNADO: Can Formal Assertions or Charges of Doping be Withdrawn by an ADO?
- International Ski Federation and FINCIS / FINADA produce Clean Sport Video Clips
- Important Media Statements supporting Clean Sport
- Anti-Doping Websites that you should know about
- New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Centre

IOC reanalysis programme Beijing 2008 and London 2012 / The International Olympic Committee (IOC). - Lausanne : IOC, 2016

The reanalysis programme of the samples from Beijing 2008 and London 2012 has led to 101 Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs). There have been three further AAFs since July, when 98 AAFs were originally reported. So far, 88 sanctions have been issued as a consequence.

To provide a level playing field for all clean athletes at the Olympic Games Rio 2016, the IOC put special measures in place, including targeted pre-tests and the reanalysis of stored samples from the Olympic Games Beijing 2008 and London 2012, following an intelligence-gathering process that started in August 2015 – in consultation with WADA, the International Federations (IFs) and National Anti-Doping Agencies (NADOs).

As a result of this reanalysis programme, 41 athletes eligible for Rio were suspended.

Samples from London have been reanalysed to assist the McLaren report, and there are likely to be more confirmed AAFs in the coming weeks and months as the reanalysis programme continues in consultation with WADA and the IFs.

The additional analyses on samples collected during the Olympic Games Beijing 2008 and London 2012 were performed with improved analytical methods, in order to possibly detect prohibited substances that could not be identified by the analysis performed at the time of these editions of the Olympic Games.

For reference, some reanalysis of the stored samples of Beijing 2008 and London 2012 was already conducted in 2009 and 2015 respectively, leading to the sanctioning of six athletes. The programme for Beijing samples has concluded due to the statute of limitations.

Details of cases can be given only once each case has been concluded and the athletes in question have been notified of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV).

The reallocation of medals is not automatic and is decided by the IOC on a case-by-case basis. If the IOC decides to reallocate the medals, such reallocation takes place only after all remedies of sanctioned athletes/teams have been exhausted (e.g. when all procedures are closed). In such case, the IOC will follow up with the relevant National Olympic Committee, which then notifies the relevant athlete(s) to whom the medals have been reallocated.

CAS ad hoc Division (OG London) 12/005 Jan Sterba v. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)

Related case:
CAS OG_2012_07 International Canoe Federation vs Jan Sterba
August 6, 2012

Canoe
Request to confirm the decision appealed
Standing to appeal

When coming to decide the issue of the standing to appeal, the constant CAS’ jurisprudence establish very clearly that only an aggrieved party, having something at stake and thus a concrete interest in challenging a decision adopted by a sports body, may appeal to CAS against that decision. This reflects the principle of the “Aggrievement Requirement” established in CAS case law and embodied in the CAS Ad hoc Rules. In this respect, when the only requested relief is to confirm a legal valid decision totally in the applicant’s favor, the latter has no legal interest. He is therefore not an aggrieved party and does not have standing to appeal.

On 9 July 2012 the International Canoe Federation Doping Control Panel (ICFDCP) decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Czech Athlete Jan Sterba after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance β-methylethylamine.
The Athlete appealed the decision of 9 July 2012 and on 24 July 2012 the International Canoe Federation Court of Arbitration (ICFCA) decided to set aside the ICFDCP decision and ruled that no anti-doping rule violation has been committed by the Athlete.

Hereafter the Athlete filed an application with the CAS ad hoc Division at the London Olympic Games againt the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) with the ICF, the COC and IOC as interested parties.
The Athlete requested the Panel to confirm the ICFDCP decision of 24 July 2012 in full with no more delay so that he can be sure to compete in the London Olympic Games.

The Panel finds that in the present case the Athlete did not submit an application against a decision but actually requested the confirmation of a decision and as he himself, in his own words wrote “the Athlete fully agrees with appealed decision”. Therefore it is clear and obvious that the Athlete has no concrete legal interest in challenging the decision. In such circumstances the Athlete is not an affected party in the sense of this principal due to the fact that he is not an aggrieved party. It follows that the Athlete does not have standing to appeal in this case.

In light of the above conclusion, the Panel finds that there is no need to address the second question regarding the standing to be sued of WADA. However the Panel finds it important to note that this fact by itself i.e. that the only WADA is a party that was not a party in the previous proceedings and was not a party to the Appealed decision, could be sufficient, by itself, to deny the Application.

The ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 July 2012:

1.) Based on the Appealed Decision and the submissions of the parties, the Panel finds that there is presently no case or controversy preventing the Athlete from participating in the XXX Olympic Games. Therefore, the Applicant has no legal interest and standing to appeal against the decision issued on 24 July 2012 by the International Canoe Federation Court of Arbitration.

2.) The Application of Mr. Jan Sterba submitted on 28 July 2012 is denied.

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Turin) 06/010 Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) v. Fédération Internationale de Bobsleigh et de Tobogganing (FIBT)

Bobsleigh
Eligibility of a bobsleigh team to participate in the Olympic Games
Distinction between an adverse analytical finding and an anti-doping rule violation

An adverse analytical finding is simply a report by the Anti-Doping laboratory that a sample is positive for a prohibited substance. Thereafter, the applicable Anti-Doping regulations (FIBT Regulations in this case) provide for an extensive process, including the athlete’s rights: to ask for a B sample test, be present at the testing of the B sample, and to have a hearing to contest the adverse analytical finding. Only after that process has been completed and the adverse analytical finding is confirmed is an anti-doping rule violation found. As a result, a sanction is imposed on the athlete in the form of Consequences as defined in the FIBT Regulations.

In February 2006 the Brazilian Olympic Committee (BOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian bobsledder Armando Dos Santos after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance nandrolone. As a consequence the BOC decided to exclude the Athlete to compete at the Turin 2006 Olympic Winter Games.

Hereafter the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) filed an application with the CAS Ad hoc Division at the Turin Olympic Games and requested the Panel for an order to declare the Brazilian 4-man bobsleight team ineligible to compete in the Olympic Winter Games and to declare instead the Australian 4-man bobsleigh team eligible to compete in the same Games.

In order for the AOC to succeed, the Panel must first find that in accordance with the FIBT Regulations, there has been a finding of an anti-doping rule violation by a member of the Brazilian 4-man Bob team. The team member, Dos Santos, has not as of this date been found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation. No decision that Dos Santos committed an anti-doping rule violation has been rendered by any authority. The adverse analytical finding announced by the BOC in apparent disregard for Rule 14.14 of the FIBT Regulations that prohibit such public disclosure is not a decision pursuant to Article 13 of the FIBT Regulations which may be appealed to CAS. The Panel finds that to date Dos Santos has not been found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation, nor has he been provisionally suspended. The BOC has chosen to remove Dos Santos from the Olympic team based on its internal policies.

Because there has been no anti-doping rule violation found, the remainder of the AOC’s submissions do not need to be addressed by the Panel. The Application fails at the outset and therefore there is no need to interpret the meaning of Article 11 of the FIBT Regulations with respect to the effect that his doping infraction would have had on the “team” of which Dos Santos was a part at the Challenge Cup.

On the basis of the foregoing facts and legal aspects, the ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport renders the following decision on 20 February 2006:

1.) The appeal filed by the Australian Olympic Committee against the Fédération Internationale de Bobsleigh et de Tobogganing is denied.
2.) (…).

CAS ad hoc Division (O.G. Salt Lake City) 02/001 Prusis & Latvian Olympic Committee (LOC) / International Olympic Committee (IOC)

Bobsleigh
Jurisdiction to rule on doping offences
Eligibility of an athlete for the OG

1. It is a matter for the relevant International Federation to decide how it deals with doping offences which come within its jurisdiction and what sanctions to impose. If it were otherwise, the International Federation’s autonomy would be illusory.

2. In the absence of a clear provision in the Olympic Charter and in the Rules of the relevant International Federation entitling the IOC to intervene in the disciplinary proceedings taken by that International Federation, an athlete has a legitimate expectation that, once he has completed the punishment imposed on him, he will be permitted to enter and participate in all competitions absent some new reason for refusing his entry. If it were otherwise, there would be a real risk of double jeopardy.

In November 2001 the International Bobsleigh and Tobogganing Federation (FIBT) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Latvian Athlete Sandis Prusis after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance nandrolone.
Analysis of the Athlete’s food supplement provided by the Athlete’s doctor showed it contained the prohibited substance.
Considering the circumstance the Executive Committee of the FIBT decided on 21 January 2002 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection until 9 February 2002.

Because the Athlete was eligible to compete at the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympic Winter Games 6 days before the first bobsleigh event, the suspended athlete together with other Latvian athletes arrived in the Olympic Village in January 2002.
Previously the Latvian Olympic Committee (LOC) had received confirmation that the Athlete could be accredited and reside in the Olympic Village even before the end of the suspension period.
However on 1 February 2002 the IOC Executive Board notified the Athlete and the LOC that he was excluded from the Olympic Winter Games.

Hereafter on 3 February 2002 the Athlete and the LOC appealed the IOC decision of 1 February 2002 with the CAS ad hoc Division at the Salt Lake City Olympic Games.
The Applicants requested the Panel to set aside the IOC Executive Board decision and to participate in the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.

The IOC submited that it alone has the right to accept or reject entries into the Olympic Games, and that the decision as to whether to accept or reject an entry is a purely administrative decision. The IOC relied in support of its decision principally upon the provisions of Rule 49 of the Olympic Charter.
The IOC further submited that its right in relation to entries is fundamentally different to the right to take measures or impose sanctions for which provision is made in Rule 25 of the Olympic Charter. Thus, the IOC argued that there is no necessity under Rule 49 for it to inform the athlete of its intention to refuse entry or of its reasons for refusal, or to give the athlete an opportunity to make representations.

The Panel notes that neither in its written pleading nor in its oral submission did the IOC attempt to hide the fact that it found the decision of the FIBT in Mr. Prusis’ case unacceptable, and that decision formed the background to its decision to refuse Mr. Prusis’ entry to the Olympic Games. That fact and the IOC’s decision raise two important issues for this Panel to decide. The first issue concerns the relationship between the IOC and the International Federations, and the second issue concerns the legitimate expectations of an athlete who has been punished by the relevant International Federation, and who has served his punishment.

In the Panel’s opinion, it was not legitimate for the IOC to rely on Rule 49 of the Olympic Charter to justify its decision. The Panel already stated their view on the possibility of double jeopardy that may arise if the IOC seeks to impose a further sanction over and above that imposed by the International Federation.

The Panel notes that Mr. Prusis was extremely fortunate to be the beneficiary of the FIBT’s improper conduct and of the lacuna in the Olympic Charter which at present precludes the IOC from intervening and appealing the sanction imposed by an International Federation.

The Panel is of the opinion that the FIBT ignored a number of CAS Awards in which it has been made clear that the “nutritional supplement defence” cannot be seriously invoked by athletes in the light of the many warnings by the IOC, WADA and the scientific community, and of the many instances of positive testing after use of such supplements. However, under the current rules, this failure by the FIBT does not empower the IOC to review the FIBT’s decision. This is, in fact, the essence of what the IOC Executive Board attempted to do by excluding the Athlete from the Winter Olympic Games. However, it is not within the Panel’s remit to make any order other than in relation to the appealed decision.

Therefore the CAS Ad hoc Division decides on 5 February 2002:

1.) The application is allowed.
2.) The decision of the IOC Executive Board dated 1 February 2002 that it would not accept Mr. Sandis Prusis’ inscription for the XIX Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City is set aside.
3.) Mr. Sandis Prusis is eligible to participate in the XIX Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City.