CAS 2018_A_6047 RUSADA vs Andrei Valerievich Eremenko

CAS 2018/A/6047 Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) v. Andrei Valerievich Eremenko

  • Athletics
  • Doping (tampering/attempted tampering and complicity of coach)
  • Offer of a bribe
  • Sanction

1. Offering a bribe to a Doping Control Officer for the replacement of a sample is an attempt to interfere with the doping control, in accordance with Article 2.5 of the All Russian Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). It is also a form of complicity in accordance with Article 2.9 of the ADR.

2. According to Article 10.3.1 of the ADR, the sanction for attempted tampering is a period of ineligibility of four years. The additional finding of complicity does not add to this.



Mr. Andrei Valerievich Eremenko is a Russian Track and Field coach and has been coaching the Athlete Yulia Viktorovna Malueva since she was 10 years old.

After an attempted Doping Control in Camp Adler, City of Sochi, Russia on 2 September 2017 by a number of Doping Control Officers (DCO) the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Yulia Viktorovna Malueva for deliberate evading from submitting to doping control and producting a sample.

After the failed sample collection on 2 September 2017 the DCOs reported that during the doping control the Athlete Malueva could not provide a sample for hours while she was continuously texting with her phone. After lunch she complained about nausea and headache and attempted vomiting. When she ultimately produced a sample she fell on the floor and the bottle with urine was dropped into the toilet. The Athlete ‘fainted’ and asked for medical treatment. In the hospital the Athlete was several times requested by the DCO to provide a sample but she indicated that she was not able to produce a sample. In the evening the DCOs stopped their attempt to collect a sample in the hospital and returned to the Doping Control Station.

RUSADA in addition reported an anti-doping rule violation against coach Eremenko for Tampering or Attempted Tampering and/or Complicity during the Doping Control on 2 September 2017. Here the DCOs reported and testified that coach Eremenko wanted to prevent that the DCO Ms Meshkova should accompany the Athlete in the ambulance to the hospital. Further coach Eremenko had offered a financial inducement to the DCO Mr Mareichev to subvert the doping control process.

The cases against the Athlete Malueva and against coach Eremenko were heard and determinded by the Russian Disciplinary Anti-Doping Commission (DADC). On 12 April 2018 the DADC decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete Malueva. However the DADC ruled that there was insufficient evidence against coach Eremenko and so the DADC decided on 12 April 2018 to acquit him.

Hereafter in December 2018 RUSADA appealed the DADC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). RUSADA requested the Panel to set aside the DADC decision of 12 April 2018 and to impose a sanction in accordance with the ADR.

RUSADA contended that there there was written witness statements that coach Eremenko had attempted to bribe DCO Mr Mareichev to act in a fraudulent manner, which would have been to submit for analysis an urine sample that purported to be that of Ms Malueva but in fact would not have been hers. This allegation is corroborated by the testimonies of two other DCOs and WhatsApp messages of the DCOs about this incident. Also there are written witness statements of the DCOs that coach Eremenko wanted to prevent DCO Ms Meshkova to accompany the Athlete in the ambulance to the hospital.

Coach Eremenko denied the allegations and asserted that RUSADA failed to demonstrate that he had bribed DCO Mr Mareichev and intentionally had counselled and encouraged the Athlete to feigh and exaggerate the extend of her illness in an effort to avoid having to provide a urine sample. He disputed the written witness statements of the DCOs and produced several reasons why these allegations should not be given any weight.

The Sole Arbitrator considers whether the RUSADA has established to her comfortable satisfaction that coach Eremenko has committed an anti-doping rule violation by Tampering or Attempted Tampering and/or Complicity. Given especially the seriousness of the allegation of offering a bribe to a DCO the Arbitrator thoroughly scrutinized the Parties' submissions, the evidence provided and above all the testimonies of the witnesses.

The Sole Arbitrator deems that during the hearing coach Eremenko not only was inconsistent in his account of the events on 2 September 2017 but again and again attacked the DCO. His behavior was regarded extreme and he never gave the impression of an innocent man fighting a wrong accusation. Furthermore the testimony of the Athlete did not support the coach his submission, she made contradictory statements and could not be seen as a reliable witness.

Finally the Sole Arbitrator has no reasonable doubt that coach Eremenko on 2 September 2017 made an attempt to bribe DCO Mr Mareichev in order to prevent an authentic urine sample being collected from the Athlete. To the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator RUSADA demonstrated coach Eremenko his complicity in the Athlete Malueva avoiding the anti-doping test.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 April 2020:

1.) The appeal filed on 6 December 2019 by Association Russian Anti-Doping Agency against Mr Andrei Valerievich Eremenko is upheld.
2.) The Decision No 77/2018 rendered by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Commission in Russia on 12 April 2018 is set aside.
3.) Mr Andrei Valerievich Eremenko has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation and is sanctioned with a period of four (4) years of ineligibility starting with the date of this decision.
4.) The costs of the present arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by Mr Andrei Valerievich Ermenko.
5.) Mr Andrei Valerievich Eremenko is ordered to pay 3,000 CHF (three thousand Swiss Francs) as a contribution towards the legal fees and other expenses incurred by Association Russian Anti-Doping Agency in the present proceedings.
6.) All other motions and prayers for relief are dismissed.

Original document

Parameters

Legal Source
CAS Appeal Awards
Date
16 April 2020
Arbitrator
Schenk, Sylvia
Original Source
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
Country
Russian Federation
Language
English
ADRV
Complicity
Tampering / attempted tampering
Legal Terms
Affidavit
Circumstantial evidence
Corruption
Digital evidence / information
Intent
Rules & regulations International Sports Federations
Sole Arbitrator
Sport/IFs
Athletics (WA) - World Athletics
Other organisations
Российское антидопинговое агентство (РУСАДА) - Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA)
Various
Athlete support personnel
Doping control
Internet / Social media
Lack of cooperation / obstruction
Sample collection procedure
Document type
Pdf file
Date generated
22 April 2020
Date of last modification
23 January 2023
Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin