CAS 2009_A_1931 Ekaterina Iourieva & Albina Akhatova vs IBU

• CAS 2009/A/1931 E. & A. v. International Biathlon Union (IBU)
• CAS 2009/A/1931 Ekaterina Iourieva & Albina Akhatova vs IBU
• CAS 2009/A/1931 Ekaterina Iourieva & Albina Akhatova v. International Biathlon
  Union
  
  

Related cases:

• IBU 2009 IBU vs Albina Akhatova
  August 11, 2009
• IBU 2009 IBU vs Ekaterina Iourieva
  August 11, 2009
• IBU 2013 IBU vs Ekaterina Iourieva
  July 14, 2014
• IBU 2014 IBU vs Ekaterina Iourieva
  June 30, 2015
• Swiss Federal Court 4A_620_2009 Ekaterina Iourieva & Albina Akhatova vs IBU
  May 7, 2010

• Biathlon
• Doping (recombinant EPO)
• Definition of the International Standards for Laboratories (ISL)
• Use of the most recent state of the art technology and knowledge
• Duty of the accredited laboratories in applying the standards
• No more requirement that a different analyst perform the analytical procedures
• Principle of lex mitior

1. The ISL is a mandatory level 2 International Standard developed as part of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADAC). The ISL includes requirements for WADA accreditation of doping laboratories, operating standards for laboratory performance and description of the accreditation process. Its main purpose is to ensure laboratory production of valid test results and evidentiary data. It is also intended to ensure that the accredited laboratories achieve uniform and harmonized results and reporting thereon. The ISL, including all Annexes and Technical Documents, is mandatory for all Signatories to the WADAC. The ISL is therefore not directly applicable to athletes but rather to the signatories to the WADAC.

2. The laboratories must always use the most recent state of the art technology and knowledge to identify prohibited substances and methods. The ISL is intended also to ensure that the accredited laboratories achieve uniform and harmonized results and reporting thereon. Therefore, the ISL ought to indicate that the use of the most recent state of the art technology and knowledge will be used in testing, particularly in a transitional period between use of an existing and effective TD and a replacing one.

3. It is the duty of the accredited WADA laboratories to be strict in meeting the requirements of the ISL and applying the standards.

4. The 2009 ISL removed the requirement that a different analyst perform the analytical procedures. The only requirement of article 5.2.4.3.2.2 in the 2009 ISL is that the “B” sample confirmation shall be performed in the same laboratory as the “A” sample confirmation.

5. The principle of lex mitior is generally understood to mean that, if the law relevant to the offence of the accused has been amended, the less severe law should be applied. Therefore, the principle of lex mitior relates more specifically to the applicable sanction and is not applicable to the technical rules underlying the scientific basis of the evidence.

In December 2008 the International Biathlon Union (IBU) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the two Russian Athletes Ekaterina Iourieva and Albina Akhatova after their A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance recombinant human erythropoetin (rhEPO).

After notifitcation a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athletes were heard for the IBU Doping Hearing Panel. On 11 August 2009 the ISU Doping Hearing Panel decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athletes Ekaterina Iourieva and Albina Akhatova, starting on the date of the sample collection.

Hereafter in August 2009 the Athletes appealed the IBU decision of 11 August 2009 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athletes requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

They argued that the laboratory failed to analyse the samples and to report the test results in conformity with the 2008 ISL and related Technical Documents (TD).

Following assessment of the evidence the Panel establishes  no departures from the applicable ISL and its accompanying technical documents. Without diminishing the importance of improvement in the future the aspect of meeting the “Documentation and Reporting” aspects of the ISL and the description of the analytical finding, the Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) of the Lab in this case can be fully relied upon by the sanctioning and reviewing bodies.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 12 November 2009 that:

1.) The Appeal of Ms Ekaterina Iourieva and Ms Albina Akatova is dismissed.

2.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) paid by the Appellants, which is retained by the CAS.

3.) Ms Ekaterina Iourieva and Ms Albina Akatova shall each pay the IBU a contribution towards the legal fees of the IBU in the amount of CHF 2,500 (two thousand five hundred Swiss Francs), within 30 (thirty) days of notification of this award.