CAS 2016/A/4700 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Lyudmila Vladimirvma Fedoriva
Athletics
Doping (tampering or attempted tampering with any part of doping control by a coach)
CAS jurisdiction
Burden, standard and means of proof
Evidence of tampering with doping control
Intent
1. Pursuant to Article 13.2.3 RUSADA ADR, WADA is entitled to appeal to the CAS against decisions issued by the appeal body specified in Article 13.2.2.1 RUSADA ADR. The final decision at the national Russian level has been made by the Sports Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, and thus WADA has the right to appeal to the CAS with respect to the decision of this national-level appeal body. Therefore, the CAS has jurisdiction to adjudicate and rule in this matter.
2. WADA shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred pursuant to Article 3.1 RUSADA ADR. The standard of proof is whether WADA established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the CAS panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation that is made. Pursuant to Article 3.2 RUSADA ADR, facts related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions. In the particular case, the proof of the coach’s anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.5 RUSADA ADR must rely on the trustworthiness of the witness statements made by two doping control officers as no other physical evidence, e.g. in the form of a positive doping sample, is present in a tampering case.
3. According to Article 2.5 RUSADA ADR, tampering constitutes an anti-doping rule violation. Tampering is defined as “conduct which subverts the doping control process…”. A broad range of behaviours may qualify as “tampering”. Whether a certain behaviour qualifies as tampering must be asserted in the individual context. Trying to persuade the doping control officer that a substitute athlete is in fact the real athlete selected to be tested, respectively attempting to persuade the doping control officer to test another athlete instead, is clearly an effort to tamper with the doping control process within the meaning of this form of anti-doping rule violation. In cases where sworn witness statements from the doping control officer in charge can reasonably be presented as evidence, very substantial counter-evidence must be presented to rebut the doping control officer’s version of the facts.
4. Trying to persuade the doping control officer that a substitute athlete is in fact the real athlete selected to be tested, respectively attempting to persuade the doping control officer to test another athlete instead, is clearly intentionally attempting to tamper with the doping control process.
Ms. Lyudmila Vladimiryna Fedoriva is a Russian Athletics coach and in 2015 she was the coach of the Athlete Dimiry Khasanov.
On 7 May 2015 the Doping Control Officers (DCOs) reported that the selected Athlete Dimiry Khasanov after a competition attempted to replace himself at the Doping Control Station with another athlete who presented himself as Dimiry Khasanov. The Coach intervened at the Doping Control Station and insisted repeatedly to the DCOs that the new Athlete was the Athlete Khasanov.
The “real” Athlete Khasanov was eventually located and identified. His sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Trenbolone and Oxandrolone.
Afterwards the Coach denied that she attempted to influence or persuade any of the DCOs against testing the Athlete Khasanov or to replace him with another athlete for testing.
As a result in 2016 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Coach for tampering with any part of the Doping Control.
The Coach appealed and the Sports Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation rejected the evidence in this case and decided on 17 May 2016 to annul the RUSADA decision.
Hereafter in July 2016 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the Russian decision of 17 May 2016 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
WADA requested the Panel to annul the Russian decision and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Coach. WADA contended that the Coach tried to mislead the DCOs and that she deliberately attempted to persuade and convice the DCOs that the Athlete Khasanov should not be tested. It argued that the witness statements of the DCOs are highly reliable and consistent nor had they any motive to bring false statements against the Coach.
The Coach denied the allegations, asserted that were departures of the ISTI and disputed the reliability of the DCOs and RUSADA.
Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Coach failed to overturn the reliability and trustworthiness of the witness statements of the DCOs presented during the appeal proceedings. Consequently the Sole Arbitrator finds that the Coach is liable of having committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.5 RUSADA ADR.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 May that:
1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 5 July 2016 is upheld.
2.) The decision of 17 May 2016 by Sport Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation is set aside.
3.) Ms. Lyudmila Vladimiryna Fedoriva is sanctionecl with a four-year period of ineligibility starting on the date of the present award. Any period of ineligibility or provisional suspension imposed on or voluntarily accepted by Ms Lyudmila Vladimiryna Fedoriva before the entry into force of this CAS award, shall be credited against a total period of ineligibility to be served.
4.) The costs of the arbitration, to be separately determined and served on the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by Ms Lyudmila Vladimiryna Fedoriva.
5.) Ms. Lyudmila Vladimiryna Fedoriva shall pay a contribution to the legal costs in these arbitration proceedings to the World Anti-Doping Agency in the amount of CHF 1,500.
6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
