CAS 2017/O/5376 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. Russian Athletic Federation (RUSAF) & Elizaveta Grechiskhnikova
- Athletics (middle & long distance)
- Doping (dehydrochlormethyltestosterone, DHCMT)
- CAS jurisdiction under Article 38.3 IAAF Rules
- Version of the regulations applicable
Determination of the sanction
1. In circumstances where an IAAF member federation is prevented from convening and completing a hearing involving an international-level athlete within the deadline set by Rule 38.3 of the IAAF Competition Rules (the “IAAF Rules”), e.g. because it is suspended from IAAF activities, the IAAF is permitted to refer the matter directly to a sole arbitrator appointed by CAS, subject to an appeal to CAS in accordance with Rule 42 of the IAAF Rules. Indeed, these proceedings are based on a request for arbitration for the conduct of a first instance hearing and do not involve an appeal against a decision rendered by a sports-related body. In case of an appeal to the CAS it is Rule 38.3 of the IAAF Rules that establish the jurisdiction of CAS.
2. Pursuant to the legal principle of tempus regit actum, the procedural aspects of the proceedings shall be subject to the rules applicable at the time of the proceedings. The substantive matters, that is the athlete’s anti-doping rule violation, shall be subject to the rules in place at the time of the alleged anti-doping rule violation subject to the possible application of the principle of lex mitior.
3. As specified in Rule 40.7(d)(i) of the 2009 IAAF Rules, the occurrence of multiple violations may be considered as a factor in determining aggravating circumstances. In this respect, a violation involving a non-specified substance revealed by a re-analysis which occurred the same year than another violation already sanctioned, must be considered with the latter for determining the applicable sanction. Thus, absent any mitigating factor submitted by the athlete or his federation, an additional sanction shall be imposed based on the sanction that could have been imposed if the two violations would have been adjudicated at the same time. The fact that the athlete committed multiple anti-doping violations using different methods (anabolic steroids and EPO/blood transfusion), justifies the increase of the period of ineligibility otherwise applicable up to a maximum of four years in application of Rule 40.6 of the 2009 IAAF Rules.
The Athlete Elizaveta Grechiskhnikova is a Russian long-distance runner competing in the Women’s 5000 metres at the World Championships in Athletics in 2009 and 2011.
The Athlete accepted a sanction for a ABP violation and she served a 2 year period of ineligibility starting on 16 October 2013.
In 2017, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the Berlin 2009 IAAF World Championships. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2009.
As a result in May 2017 the IAAF reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2009 sample tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol). After notification the Athlete failed to respond to the IAAF communications.
Because the Russia Athletic Federation (RusAF) was suspended by the IAAF the case was referred in October 2017 to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel procedure with the right to appeal.
The IAAF contended that the evidence in this case shows that the Athlete used prohibited substances, respectively methods, on multiple occasions, namely in respect to the reanalysis violation on 19 August 2009 and in respect of the ABP Violation which she has admitted. The IAAF argued that there are aggravating circumstances and requested the Panel to impose a 4 year period of inelibility on the Athlete, less the ineligibility period of two years already imposed on the Athlete.
Although duly invited neither RusAF or the Athlete responded to the CAS communications, nor did they file any statement in their defence.
Considering the test result and the fact that the Athlete has not disputed the Cologne Laboratory's finding, the Sole Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete has violated Rule 32.2(a) of the 2009 IAAF Rules and thus has committed an anti-doping rule violation.
The Sole Arbitrator determines that the Athlete committed multiple anti-doping violations using different methods (anabolic steroids and EPO/blood transfusion), which justifies the increase of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable up to a maximum of four years in application of Rule 40.6 of the 2009 IAAF Rules.
For the ABP Violation in 2009, the Athlete accepted a two-year Ineligibility period commencing on 13 October 2013. Accordingly the Athlete shall be sanctioned with an additional two-year period of ineligibility for the Reanalysis Violation under the 2009 IAAF Rules starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 18 May 2017.
Previously the Athlete’s results were already disqualified from 18 August 2009 to 15 October 2013 as a result of the ABP violation.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 27 April 2018 that:
1.) The Request for Arbitration filed by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) on 26 October 2017 is upheld.
2.) Ms Elizaveta Grechis.hnikova is responsible for the anti-doping rule violation contemplated by Article 32.2.(a) of the 2009 IAAF Competition Rules.
3.) Ms Elizaveta Grechishnikova is imposed the sanction of Ineligibility for two (2) years starting from 18 May 2017.
4.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne in their entirety by the Russian Athletic Federation.
5.) Ms Elizaveta Grechishnikova is ordered to pay CHF 2,000.00 (two thousand Swiss Francs) to the International Association of Athletics Federations as a contribution towards its legal fees and expenses. The Russian Athletic Federation and Ms Elizaveta Grechishnikova shall bear their own legal fees and expenses.
6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
