CAS 2016/A/4655 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. All Russia Athletics Federation (ARAF) & Stanislav Emelyanov
Related cases:
- CAS 2017_A_5193 IAAF vs ARAF & Stanislav Emelyanov
December 15, 2017 - CAS 2016_O_4465 IAAF vs Mikhail Ryzhov
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_OA_4454 IAAF vs Vera Sokolova
October 13, 2016 - CAS 2016_O_4457 IAAF vs Denis Strelkov
October 13, 2016
- Athletics (race walking)
- Doping (rhEPO)
- CAS jurisdiction according to IAAF Rule 38.19
- Applicable law to procedural and substantive issues respectively
- Proof of use of a prohibited substance despite the lack of confirmation of presence in the B sample
- Determination of the period of ineligibility for an intentional second offence
1. The applicable 2016 IAAF Rules expressly permit anti-doping rule violation cases to be filed directly with the CAS as a sole instance adjudicatory body. In this regard, IAAF Rule 38.19 provides that cases asserting anti-doping rule violations may be heard directly by CAS with no requirement for a prior hearing, with the consent of all the relevant stakeholders i.e. the IAAF, the Athlete, WADA and any Anti-Doping Organisation (ADO) that would have had a right to appeal a first hearing decision to CAS.
2. As a general rule, the procedural issues should be governed by the regulations in force at the time of the procedural act in question, whereas the substantive aspects of the proceedings are governed by the regulations in force at the time of the alleged anti-doping violations, subject to the possible application of lex mitior.
3. The body of evidence available can allow to consider that the use of a prohibited substance is established despite the lack of confirmation of presence in the B sample. Several factors may indeed explain why an athlete’s B-sample did not confirm the findings of the A-sample: the low volume of urine left in the sample; endogenous slow-acting proteases degrading the prohibited substance; the lack of satisfactory explanation as to why the DCO had to wait hours before being able to conduct the doping test; and finally and importantly the very high dilution of the athlete’s urine sample. Those factors show that the only manner in which the athlete could have urine samples with specific gravities almost equivalent to water is as a consequence of having consumed significant amounts of water during the day and prior to the doping control in an attempt to rapidly excrete the prohibited substance as well as substantially dilute the urine sample.
4. An athlete who failed to show the origin of the prohibited substance in his sample, failed to explain about his activities on the day of testing resulting in the testing delay, failed to provide explanations as to the highly susceptible diluted urine samples, and failed to present credible evidence demonstrating that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional according to the applicable rules must be sanctioned with a four-year ineligibility period under IAAF Rule 40.2 for a breach of IAAF Rule 32.2(b) (Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method). In case it is the athlete’s second anti-doping rule violation, in accordance with IAAF Rule 40.8(a)(iii), the applicable period of ineligibility to be imposed is eight years. Furthermore, all the competitive results obtained by the athlete from the positive anti-doping testing through the commencement of his suspension period are disqualified.
Mr. Stanislav Emelyanov is a Russian Athlete specialising in the Athletics discipline of race walking.
On 15 December 2012 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Russian Athlete for the anti-doping rule violation related to the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).
On 2 June 2015 the Athletics Doping Control Officer (DCO) arrived at the Saransk centre at 6.30 a.m. to conduct doping tests. The Athlete Stanislav Emelyanov nor other athletes could be found for almost 12 hours. Furthermore the DCO tried to call the concerned athletes but none of them answered their phones. After several other obstructive actions, the athletes finally showed up at 6 p.m. to be tested.
Hereafter the A and B samples of 5 Russian athletes tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO) and on 13 October 2016 a 4 year period of ineligibility was imposed on the athletes Mikhail Ryzhov, Elmira Alembekova, Ivan Noskov, Vera Sokolova and Denis Strelkov.
The IAAF also reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Stanislav Emelyanov after his A sample tested positive for rhEPO. However the IAAF decided in September 2016 to terminate proceedings against the Athlete when his B sample did not confirm the A sample’s result due to not any EPO signal could be detected in the sample.
Following a request by the IAAF In April 2016 the Lausanne Laboratory issued its report (the Swiss Report) on the Athlete’s samples responding to the question regarding the discrepancy between the Athlete’s A and B samples.
In May 2016 the IAAF decided to open new proceedings against the Russian Athlete Stanislav Emelyanov for Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method and/or Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any part of a Doping Control.
Because the All Russia Athletic Federation (ARAF) was suspended by the IAAF the case was referred in June 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 sanction the Athlete for a second anti-doping violation due to the prohibited substance rhEPO was found in the Athlete’s A sample. Relying on the Swiss Report the IAAF argued that there are several explanations for the fact that the B sample did not confirm the results of the A sample analysis.
In fact the Athlete’s B sample did not contain any EPO at all, either endogenous or exogenous. The IAAF also asserted that the samples of at least six athletes (including the Athlete) collected on 2 June 2015 at the Saransk center tested positive for rhEPO and all these samples were heavily diluted.
The Athlete disputed, supported by an expert witness, the validity of the test results and the findings of the Swiss Report. He addressed the circumstantial evidence presented by the IAAF and gave an explanation for the low specific gravity in his samples.
The Panel determines that the Athlete failed to adduce sufficient evidence to meet his burden to demonstrate that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional. There was absence of any evidence as to the origin of the rhEPO in the Athlete's A sample, combined with problematic evidence and questionable explanations about the activities on the day of testing.
The DCO was not allowed to meet the Athlete for twelve hours after arriving to the test site whereas he provided highly susceptible diluted urine samples. Further there was a general lack of credible corroborated evidence supporting the Athlete's lack of intent.
Considering the evidence and statements of expert witnesses the Panel concludes that the only manner in which the Athlete could have urine samples with specific gravities of 1.002, 1.003, and 1.009 is as a consequence of having consumed significant amounts of water during the day and prior to the doping control in an attempt to rapidly excrete the Prohibited Substance as well as substantially dilute the urine sample. Consequently the Panel finds that the Athlete violated the IAAF Rules by use of the prohibited substance rhEPO.
In view of the Panel finding that the Athlete has used the prohibited substance as second anti-doping rule violation, and that the Athlete's sanction would not be affected by a finding about Tampering, the Panel does not need to assess whether the Athlete has also infringed Rule 32.2(e) of the IAAF Rules regarding Tampering or Attempted Tampering.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 April 2017 that:
1) The claim filed by the International Association of Athletics Federations against the All Russia Athletics Federation and Mr Stanislav Emelyanov on 8 June 2016 is upheld.
2) Mr Stanislav Emelyanov has committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Rule 32.2.(b) of the 2015 IAAF Competition Rules.
3) Mr Stanislav Emelyanov is sanctioned with an eight-year period of ineligibility starting on 7 April 2017.
4) All the competitive results obtained by Mr Stanislav Emelyanov from 2 June 2015 through the commencement of his suspension period on 7 April 2017 are disqualified, with all the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.
5) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served separately to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne jointly and severally by the All Russia Athletics Federation and Mr Stanislav Emelyanov.
6) The All Russia Athletics Federation and Mr Stanislav Emelyanov are ordered to pay to the International Association of Athletics Federations a total amount of CHF 5,000 (five thousand Swiss Francs) 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.
