CAS 2016/O/4457 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. Denis Strelkov
Related cases:
- CAS 2016_O_4454 IAAF vs Vera Sokolova
October 13, 2016 - CAS 2016_O_4455 IAAF vs Elmira Alembekova
October 13, 2016 - CAS 2016_O_4456 IAAf vs Ivan Noskov
October 13, 2016 - CAS 2016_O_4465 IAAF vs Mikhail Ryzhov
October 13, 2016 - CAS 2016_A_4655 IAAF vs ARAF & Stanislav Emelyanov
April 7, 2017
- Athletics (race walking)
- Doping (rhEPO)
- Jurisdiction of the CAS as a sole instance adjudicatory body
- International-level athlete
- Procedure applicable to the arbitration
- r-EPO as non-threshold substance
- Period of ineligibility
1. If the national federation which should have been in charge of the matter as a first instance adjudicatory body is suspended, the matter can be directly referred to CAS in accordance with Rule 38.3 of the 2016-2017 IAAF Competition Rules. Furthermore, Rule 38.19 of the 2016-2017 IAAF Competition Rules expressly permit anti-doping rule violation cases to be filed directly with the CAS as a sole instance adjudicatory body.
2. Pursuant to the definitions provided in Chapter 3 (Anti-Doping & Medical Rules) of the IAAF Rules, an athlete who is in the Registered Testing Pool established at international level by the IAAF is considered to be an International-Level Athlete and, consequently, he or she is bound by the IAAF Rules.
3. According to Rule 38.3 of the IAAF Competition Rules, the CAS Appeals Arbitration Procedure shall be applied to such anti-doping rule violation cases filed directly with the CAS as a sole instance adjudicatory body, even though not literally appeals cases.
4. Pursuant to the 2015 WADA Prohibited List, there is no quantitative threshold applicable to r-EPO and thus any amount present in an athlete’s bodily sample shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation.
5. If the athlete has not established that his/her anti-doping rule violations were not intentional, nor even adduced any evidence or explanation regarding the origin of the prohibited substance in his/her urine samples or his/her usage of this prohibited substance, none of the necessary conditions for eliminating or reducing the period of ineligibility are satisfied and the sanction to be imposed on the athlete for his/her first anti-doping rule violations shall be a four-year period of ineligibility.
In July 2015 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete Denis Strelkov after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete waived his right to be heard and didn’t file a statement in his defence.
Because the All Russia Athletic Federation (ARAF) was suspended by the IAAF the case was referred in February 2016 to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel procedure with the right to appeal.
The IAAF requested the Panel to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete and submitted “the fact that at least six race walkers (including the Athlete) that were tested on 2 June 2015 at the Saransk centre reported adverse analytical findings for EPO.
In addition, the heavily diluted samples provided by the Athlete (specific gravity of 1.003 for the first sample) and by the rest of the athletes that underwent doping controls, indicate a concerted effort to prevent the detection of prohibited substances."
Although the Doping Control Officer (DCO) arrived at the Saransk centre at 6.30 a.m. on 2 June 2015 to conduct the doping tests, no athlete could be found for almost 12 hours. Furthermore, the DCO tried to call the concerned athletes but none of them answered their phones and, after several other obstructive actions, the athletes finally showed up at 6 p.m. to be tested.
The Panel finds that it is undisputed that rhEPO was found in the Athlete’s samples and is puzzled that the Athlete did not admit to committing any anti-doping rule violations, yet he did not offer any defence or exculpatory evidence in this proceeding.
The Panel consider it appropriate to make the following observations regarding this matter: The Panel recognizes and expresses its concern about the apparent orchestrated and systemic nature of the usage of prohibited substances or methods by international-level Russian track and field athletes specializing in race walking.
After the Doping Control Officer was unable to contact various athletes and encountered a delay of almost 12 hours locating any of the ten athletes selected for an out-of-competition doping control at the Saransk, Russia race walking center on 2 June 2015, six athletes provided individual urine samples (those given by 4 Athletes were diluted), each of which tested positive for r-EPO.
Moreover, the Panel finds that the unwillingness of the ARAF to participate in any of the IAAF anti-doping rule proceedings against the five Athletes, each of whom requested on 25 April 2016 that the Panel "issue an award based solely on the parties' written submissions and I refase the hearing to be held” and signed the 6 July 2016 Order of Procedure on 8 July 2016, which acknowledged their respective decision not to file an Answer to the IAAF's charges against them and that no hearing would be held, suggests that a centralized and coordinated approach has been adopted to preclude this Athlete and others from providing any evidence or testimony regarding the nature and scope of the usage of prohibited substances or methods by Russian race walkers and/or to identify other persons involved in orchestrating these anti-doping violations.
Because of their identical factual and legal issues, each individual case has been assigned to the CAS Panel. Regrettably, the Panel holds that this approach precludes any potential reduction of the Athlete's disciplinary sanction based on her provision of substantial assistance in discovering anti-doping rule violations by others.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 October 2016 that:
1.) The claim filed by the International Association of Athletics Federations against Mr. Denis Strelkov with the Court of Arbitration for Sport on 19 February 2016 is upheld.
2.) Mr. Denis Strelkov has committed anti-doping rule violations pursuant to Rules 32.l and 32.2 of the 2015 IAAF Competition Rules.
3.) Mr. Denis Strelkov is sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility, starting on 15 July 2015.
4.) All the competitive results obtained by Mr. Denis Strelkov from 2 June 2015 through to the commencement of his suspension period on 15 July 2015 are disqualified, with all the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.
5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served separately to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be entirely borne by Mr. Denis Strelkov.
6.) Mr. Denis Strelkov is ordered to pay to the International Association of Athletics Federation a total amount of CHF 2,000 as contribution towards its legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration procedure.
7.) Any other motions or prayers for relief are rejected.
