CAS 2017/O/5218 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. Russian Athletic Federation & Vasiliy Kopeykin
- Athletic (long jump)
- Doping (trimetazidine)
- CAS jurisdiction under Rule 38.19 IAAF Competition Rules
- Duty to provide concrete evidence of the source of the prohibited substance under the balance of probabilities standard
- Proof of lack of intent without establishing the source of the prohibited substance
1. According to Rule 38.19 of the IAAF Competition Rules, cases asserting anti-doping rule violations may be heard directly by CAS with no requirement for a prior hearing, with the consent of the IAAF, the athlete, WADA and any Anti-Doping Organisation that would have had a right to appeal a first hearing decision to CAS.
2. The “balance of probability” standard entails that the athlete has the burden of convincing the adjudicating body that the occurrence of the circumstances on which s/he relies regarding the origin of the prohibited substance is more probable than their non-occurrence. The “balance of probability standard” requires the athlete to prove that his scenario is more likely than not to be correct. Establishing the origin of the prohibited substance requires substantiated, supported and corroborated evidence by the athlete. It is not sufficient for the athlete merely to make protestations of innocence, provide hypothesis or suggest that the prohibited substance must have entered his/her body inadvertently from some supplement, medicine or other product which the athlete was taking at the relevant time. Rather, the athlete must provide concrete, persuasive and actual evidence, as opposed to mere speculation, to demonstrate that a particular supplement, medication or other product that s/he took contained the prohibited substance.
3. In order to meet the burden of proving lack of intent without establishing how the substance entered his/her body, an athlete cannot merely rely on protestations of innocence, lack of a demonstrable sporting incentive to dope, diligent attempts to discover the origin of the prohibited substance or his/her clean record. Supporting lack of intent without establishing the origin of the prohibited substance requires truly exceptional circumstances that might otherwise negate the presumed intentionality of the violation.
In January 2017 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete Vasiliy Kopeykin after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Trimetazidine. After notification the Athlete provided an explanation to the IAAF which was rejected in May 2018 and a provisional suspension was ordered.
Because the Russia Athletic Federation (RusAF) was suspended by the IAAF the case was referred in June 2018 to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel procedure with the right to appeal.
The Athlete denied the use of doping and argued that the IAAF failed to submit clear and convincing evidence to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator in support of the anti-doping violation, the case should be dismissed.
The Athlete asserted that the evidence demonstrated that he was not engaged in a practice of doping using Trimetazidine and that the medication Migsis was the source of the positive test. Also he disputed the test results of the B sample analysis by the Stockholm Lab due to there were departures from the ISL.
The IAAF contended that the test results had established the presence of a prohibited substance in the samples and requested the Panel to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The IAAF argued that the Trimetazidine in the Athlete's sample does not result from an ingestion of Migsis/lomerizine and the Athlete has failed to establish the origin of the prohibited substance and, consequently, to discharge his burden to demonstrate that the anti-doping violation was not intentional.
The Sole Arbitrator notes that the Athlete insisted on the fact that he has discharged his burden of proving the source of the substance being Migsis used by him to relieve his migraines, and thus the lack of intent. The Athlete argued that the totality of the evidence presented is sufficient to establish on the balance of probabilities that he had no intention to cheat whatsoever.
However, the Sole Arbitrator concludes that based on the case law, the Athlete's arguments are not indicative of exceptional circumstances that might negate the presumed intentionality of the violation. The Arbitrator finds that the Athlete clearly failed to identify the origin of the prohibited substance in his system, nor are identified exceptional circumstances that might otherwise negate the presumed intentionality of the violation.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 12 July 2018 that:
1.) The claim filed by the International Association of Athletics Federations against the Russian Athletic Federation and Mr Vasiliy Kopeykin on 29 June 2017 is upheld.
2.) Mr Vasiliy Kopeykin has committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Rule 32.2(a) of the 2016-2017 IAAF Competition Rules.
3.) Mr Vasiliy Kopeykin is sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting from 4 May 2017.
4.) All the competitive results obtained by Mr Vasiliy Kopeykin between 6 December 2016 through the commencement of his suspension period on 4 May 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 Russian Athletic Federation and Mr Vasiliy Kopeykin.
6.) The Russian Athletic Federation and Mr Vasiliy Kopeykin are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, 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 incuned in connection with this arbitration procedure.
7.) Any other motions or prayers for relief are rejected.