CAS 2016/O/4684 Russian Olympic Committee (ROC), Lyukman Adams et al. v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)
The Parties in this case are the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) and 68 Russian athletes affiliated to the Russian athletics federation (ARAF, now RusAF):
- Lyukman Adams,
- Kseniya Aksyonova,
- Tatyana Arkhipova,
- Victor Butenko,
- Timofey Chalyy,
- Elena Cherniaeva (Kozlova),
- Dmitriy Chizhikov,
- Artem Denmukhametov,
- Gulshat Fazlitdinova,
- Aleksey Fedorov,
- Ekaterina Galitskaia,
- Georgy Gorokhov,
- Elena Isinbaeva,
- Pavel Ivashko,
- Darya Klishina,
- Oxana Kondratyeva,
- Ekaterina Koneva,
- Vasiliy Kopeikin,
- Elena Korobkina,
- Ilia Krasnov,
- Vladimir Krasnov,
- Antonina Krivoshapka,
- Maria Kuchina,
- Denis Kudryavtsev,
- Anna Kukushkina,
- Alla Kuliatina,
- Alexandr Lesnoi,
- -Sergej Litvinov,
- Danil Lysenko,
- Yuliya Maltseva,
- Alena Mamima,
- Nikolay Markov,
- Aleksandr Menkov,
- Anna Misochenko,
- Olga Mullina,
- Marina Pandakova,
- Elena (Yuelena) Panova,
- Marina Panteleyeva,
- Yulia Pidluzhnaya,
- Evgeniya Polyakova,
- Sergey Polyanskiy,
- Mariya Ponomareva,
- Alina Prokopeva,
- Vera Rebrik (Rebryk),
- Ekaterina Renzhina,
- Aleksey Reunkov,
- Vera Rudakova,
- Ilgizar Safiullin,
- Ivan Shablyuev (Shablyuyev),
- Sergey Sharypov,
- Anna Shchagina,
- Ilya Shkurenev,
- Sergey Shubenkov,
- Maksim Sidorov,
- Anzhelika Sidorova,
- Kristina Sivkova,
- Aleksei Sokirskii,
- Ekaterina Sokolenko,
- Ekaterina Strokova,
- Dmitri Tarabin,
- Irina Tarasova,
- Pavel Trenikhin,
- Sardana Trofimova,
- Daniil Tysplakov,
- Ivan Ukhov,
- Roman Yevstifeyev,
- Svetlana Vasilyeva,
- Natalia
vs the International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF)
Related case:
CAS 2016_A_4703 Lyukman Adams [et al.] [67 Russian Athletes] vs IAAF
October 14, 2016
- Athletics
- Validity and enforceability of IAAF regulations regarding eligibility for the Olympic Games
- Validity of rule 22.1 (a) IAAF Competitions Rules
- Validity of rule 22.1A IAAF Competition Rules
- Lack of entitlement of a NOC to nominate ineligible athletes to compete at the Olympic Games
- Entry of an eligible athlete as a representative of his national federation or as “neutral athlete”
1. Rule 22.1(a) IAAF Competition Rules imposes ineligibility on athletes affiliated to a suspended federation member of the IAAF. The rule affects the eligibility of athletes to enter into international competitions. It is therefore an eligibility rule of general application, not specific to doping cases, and not a sanction. According to the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), international federations are mandated to require as a condition of membership that the rules of their National Federations (NF) are in compliance with the WADC. It is a fundamental principle of the law of associations in all applicable jurisdictions that members of associations have an obligation to satisfy the requirements for membership in the association and if they fail to do so those members may have their association membership adversely affected. Therefore the rule which suspends member federations which are not in compliance with the WADC is consistent with said WADC. The indeterminate length of ineligibility is a simple consequence of the fact that it is contingent on the NF being reinstated. That does not make it uncertain. It is certain that once the NF is reinstated the athletes will no longer be ruled ineligible by Rule 22.1(a). What is more, because Rule 22.1(a) is not a sanction, it does not have to pass any test of proportionality. In any event, the Rule is a proportionate means of encouraging NFs to comply with the IAAF’s rules i.e. to put in place an adequate system to protect and promote clean athletes, fair play and integrity of sport. There is also no discrimination on the grounds of nationality as the Rule applies to any NF. Finally, a clear rule cannot be contrary to the parties legitimate expectations if it has been in existence for many years. Consequently, the rule is valid and applicable to athletes affiliated to a federation suspended for failing to ensure an effective doping system.
2. Rule 22.1A IAAF Competition Rules is a permissive rule in the sense that it does not impose ineligibility but on the contrary, it allows eligibility to be regained for athletes affiliated to a suspended NF, if specific conditions are satisfied. As a result, it cannot be construed as a sanction. It cannot, therefore, be considered inconsistent with the WADC or disproportionate. Furthermore, as the Rule is an inclusionary rule which creates an opportunity, not a bar, any uncertainty about its retroactive application i.e. regarding the definition of a “sufficiently long period” for an athlete to be subject to an “adequate system” in order to regain eligibility, does not help the athletes in having the application of the rule set aside in a given case. It would also not assist any athletes for the rule not to be applied, since they would not, in any case, regain eligibility. It would only have the effect of harming any other athletes who satisfied Rule 22.1 A(b). Moreover, a rule which applies to any athlete of any suspended federation does not infringe any right to equal treatment. Finally, athletes’ legitimate expectations cannot be breached by Rule 22.1A as the rule provides another route to eligibility, one which can be pursued even though the NF had not been reinstated in accordance with the reinstatement conditions. Consequently, the rule is valid and enforceable.
3. According to the Olympic Charter (OC), NOCs have the right to enter competitors to the Olympic Games. However, Rule 40 OC restricts participation in the Olympic Games to those who comply with the OC and the WADC, including the conditions of participation established by the IOC, as well as the rules of the relevant IF as approved by the IOC. Therefore, the NOCs can only exercise their right to send personnel to the Olympic Games if they comply with the rules of the relevant International Federation (IF) because otherwise they would be contravening Rule 40 OC. As a result, a NOC cannot enter into the Olympic Games athletes who do not comply with the IAAF rules, including those athletes who are not eligible under Competition Rules 22.1(a) and 22.1A. Further, in the absence of the IOC to the procedure before the CAS, a CAS panel has no jurisdiction to determine whether the IOC is entitled to accept or refuse the entry of national track and field athletes to compete at the Olympic Games if they are not eligible to participate under IAAF Competition Rule 22.1(a) and 22.1A.
4. Under the OC, if a track and field athlete is eligible to compete at the Olympic Games under IAAF Competition Rule 22.1A, his NOC is entitled to enter this athlete to compete as representative of his country of citizenship. However, this does not mean that the IOC is bound to accept such designation. A CAS panel has no jurisdiction to determine whether the IOC is entitled to accept or refuse the entry of an athlete eligible to compete at the Olympic Games under IAAF Competition Rule 22.1A as representative of his national federation or in an individual capacity as “neutral athlete”.
On 9 November 2015 the World Anti-Doping Agency published the Independent Commission Report. The WADA Independent Commission’s mandate was the examination of allegations made on television programs aired by the German television channel ARD, with particular reference to athletics in Russia and the IAAF. Amongst several recommendations made against various bodies, the report recommended that WADA should immediately declare ARAF to be non-compliant with the WADC.
On 26 November 2015, the IAAF Council suspended ARAF and it was decided that in order to regain full membership ARAF would need to satisfy a list of criteria, to be verified by a Task Force specifically appointed for such purpose.
On 17 June 2016 after recommendations of the Task Force the IAAF Council decided not to reinstate RusAF to IAAF membership.
The consequence was that Russian athletes remained ineligible under IAAF rules to compete in international competitions, as defined in the IAAF Competition Rules, edition 2015-2016, including the European Championships and the track-and-field events at the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
On the same day, the IAAF Council passed a rule amendment to the effect that if there were any individual athletes who can clearly and convincingly show that they were not tainted by the Russian system because they had been outside the country, and subject to other, effective anti-doping systems, including effective drug-testing, then they should be able to apply for permission to compete in International Competitions, not for Russia but as a neutral athlete.
Further, the IAAF Council recommended that any individual athlete who had made an extraordinary contribution to the fight against doping in sport should also be able to apply for permission to compete in International Competitions (as a neutral athlete). The IAAF implemented a new rule in its Competition Rules, namely Rule 22.1A, and a new definition of “Neutral Athlete”.
Hereafter in July 2016 the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) 68 Russian athletes and the IAAF requested the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to render a decision about the dispute between the parties.
As a result of the Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the Panel has to decide on a number of issues. In essence, they regard the legality of the application in the present circumstances of the Contested Rules, and their consequences with respect to the 2016 Olympic Games.
On 10 October 2016 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides that:
1.) IAAF Competition Rule 22.1(a) is valid and enforceable in the circumstances of the present dispute.
2.) IAAF Competition Rule 22.1A is valid and enforceable in the circumstances of the present dispute.
3.) Under the Olympic Charter, the ROC is not entitled to nominate the entry of Russian track and field athletes to compete at the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio if they are not eligible to participate under IAAF Competition Rules 22.1(a) and 22.1A.
4.) As the International Olympic Committee is not a party to the present procedure, the CAS Panel has no jurisdiction to determine whether the International Olympic Committee is entitled to accept or refuse the entry of Russian track and field athletes to compete at the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio if they are not eligible to participate under IAAF Competition Rules 22.1(a) and 22.1A.
5.) Under the Olympic Charter, if there are any Russian track and field athletes who are eligible to compete at the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio under IAAF Competition Rule 22.1A, the ROC is entitled to enter them to compete as representatives of the Russian Federation.
6.) As the International Olympic Committee is not a party to the present procedure, the CAS Panel has no jurisdiction to determine whether the International Olympic Committee is entitled to accept or refuse the entry as representatives of the Russian Federation or as “neutral athletes” of any Russian track and field athletes who are eligible or not eligible to compete at the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio under IAAF Competition Rule 22.1A.
7.) (…).
8.) (…).
