CAS 2017/A/4927 Misha Aloyan v. International Olympic Committee (IOC)
Related case:
CAS OG_AD_2016_11 IOC vs Misha Aloian
December 8, 2016
Boxing
Doping (tuaminoheptane)
Interpretation of the statutes and rules of a sport association
Discretion with regard to automatic disqualification of results
Withdrawal of medals
1. Under Swiss law, the interpretation of the statutes and rules of a sport association has to be rather objective and should always start with the wording of the rule, which falls to be interpreted. The adjudicating body will have to consider the meaning of the rule, looking at the language used, and the appropriate grammar and syntax. In its search, the adjudicating body will have further to identify the intentions (objectively construed) of the association which drafted the rule, and such body may also take account of any relevant historical background which illuminates its derivation, as well as the entire regulatory context in which the particular rule is located.
2. The wording of Article 9 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) leaves no room for any form of discretion to verify whether a finding of an anti-doping rule violation should not trigger the “Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results”: it refers to the “automatic” disqualification of results and does not mention any way to avoid such “automatic” consequence of an anti-doping rule violation. Automatic meaning “following necessarily”, what follows “necessarily” is not by definition subject to any discretional evaluation or flexibility. This conclusion is supported by the entire regulatory context in which Article 9 of the IOC ADR operates. Indeed, the “Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results” appears to be nothing else than an objective consequence of an objective fact, i.e. of the finding of an anti-doping rule violation, and an effect of a retroactive assessment of a condition of ineligibility: no athlete using a prohibited substance (unless authorized on the basis of a valid TUE) can compete; if an athlete is later found having competed while a prohibited substance was in his/her body, his/her individual results are disqualified. The disqualification is not a sanction, but only the reinstatement of an objective condition, which explains why its application is “automatic”. On the other hand, the other consequences deriving from the finding of an anti-doping rule violation have the character of a sanction, and therefore engage consideration of the athlete’s fault, which falls to be assessed by the adjudicating body according to the rules.
3. It is not possible to allow an athlete to keep a silver medal (and all related honours) on the basis of the argument that the medal was secured following his/her victory in the Semi-final, and therefore that the disqualification of his/her result at the Final would not entail the withdrawal of the medal already won. Medals are awarded only after a competition has been concluded so that disqualification from the Final carries with it as a necessary concomitant loss of any medal which would otherwise have been awarded as a result of victory in the Semi-final.
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. As a result the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel (CAS ADD) decided on 8 December 2016 to disqualify the Athlete’s results obtained at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games including forfeiture of any medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes.
Hereafter in December 2016 the Athlete appealed the CAS ADD Panel decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete admitted the anti-doping violation and that he had duly demonstrated how the prohibited substance entered into his system, not enhancing his sporting performance at all. The Athlete asserted that in this appeal the Panel has to determine whether the automatic disqualification of the result obtained by the Athlete was proportionate or disproportionate in the unique circumstances of the specific case.
The Panel concludes that Article 9 of the IOC ADR leaves no room for any form of discretion to verify whether a finding of an anti-doping rule violation should not trigger the “Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results”. As a result, there is no need to consider the Second Issue, and more specifically whether the Athlete’s situation is such as to avoid the triggering of the mentioned “Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results”.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 June 2017 that:
1.) The appeal filed on 29 December 2016 by Mr Misha Aloyan against the award rendered on 8 December 2016 by the Sole Arbitrator of the CAS Anti-Doping Division for the Rio 2016 Olympic Games is dismissed.
(…)
4.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
