CAS 2019_A_6168 Ivan Ukhov vs IAAF

CAS 2019/A/6168 Ivan Ukhov v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)


Related case:

CAS 2018_O_5668 IAAF vs RusAF & Ivan Ukhov
February 1, 2019


  • Athletics (high jump)
  • Doping (desoxymethyltestosterone)
  • Admissibility of the appeal in case the national association is not named as the respondent
  • Means of evidence
  • Influence of a doping plan or scheme on establishing ADRVs in individual cases
  • Assessment of circumstancial evidence
  • Distinction between liability and sanction with regard to the state of knowledge of the athlete
  • Doping plan or scheme as aggravating circumstance in the assessment of the period of ineligibility
  • Disqualification of results

1. According to Rule 42.18 of the 2016 IAAF Competition Rules, “as a general rule, the respondent to a CAS appeal shall be the party which has taken the decision that is subject to appeal. Where the Member has delegated the conduct of a hearing (…) in accordance with Rule 38.5, the respondent to the CAS appeal against such decision shall be the member”. The words “as a general rule” are indicative that this provision does not lay down conditions that are mandatory in every case and in all circumstances. In addition, the requirement that an appeal must be brought against “the member” is expressly limited to circumstances where that member “has delegated the conduct of a hearing … in accordance with Rule 38.5”. However, where a national association ceases to be a member of the IAAF for any reason, it is impossible for it to conduct a hearing and therefore there is no proper “delegation” within the meaning of Rule 38.5. In such a case, there is no mandatory rule requiring to bring the appeal against the national association.

2. The IAAF Competition Rules make no distinction between “direct” and “circumstantial” evidence, nor do they specify that evidence must have been created or obtained specifically for the purpose of proving anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs). They state that the party with the burden of proving an ADRV – may resort to “any reliable means”. The use of the word “any” makes clear that there is no restriction on the type or nature of evidence that may be adduced. However, findings of fact can only be reached on the basis of evidence that is reliable.

3. The mere existence of a doping scheme does not suffice for the purposes of establishing ADRVs in individual cases. However, the existence of such a scheme is a relevant fact to be taken into account in the evaluation of the evidence.

4. In a case where there are various non-analytical evidentiary elements, not only each element individually, but also the global weight of the evidence as a whole should be considered. It is in the nature of circumstantial evidence that single items of evidence may each be capable of an innocent explanation but, taken together, establish guilt to the ‘comfortable satisfaction’ mandated from a tribunal before it can inculpate a sportsperson of a disciplinary offence.

5. Liability under the IAAF Competition Rules is a rule of strict liability. An ADRV is established notwithstanding any intent, fault, negligence or knowledge on the part of the athlete. By contrast to the issue of liability, the state of knowledge of the athlete is relevant to the question of sanction.

6. In the circumstances, where it cannot be shown that an athlete was aware of the existence of a wider doping plan or scheme at the time the prohibited substances were used, the mere existence of such plan or scheme does not, of itself, amount to an aggravating circumstance in the assessment of the period of ineligibility. This flows from the language of the relevant rule which states that the aggravating circumstance exists when the athlete committed the ADRV “as part” of that scheme.

7. When applying the wide discretion it retains in the disqualification of results, a CAS panel must be guided by the principles of fairness and proportionality.



On 16 July 2016, Professor Richard McLaren (the Independent Person or the IP) issued a first report on the allegations of systemic doping in Russia. Some of the key findings of the First IP Report were that: 

  1. the Moscow Laboratory operated, for the protection of doped Russian athletes, within a state-dictated failsafe system, described in the First IP Report as the disappearing positive methodology (DPM) and
  2. the Ministry of Sport of the Russian Federation directed, controlled, and oversaw the manipulation of athletes' analytical results or sample swapping, with the active participation and assistance of the Russian Federal Security Service, the Center of Sports Preparation of National Teams of Russia, and both Moscow and Sochi Laboratories.

On 9 December 2016, the IP elaborated on the First IP Report and released a second report on the doping allegations in Russia, together with the First IP Report. The Second IP Report confirmed the key findings of the First IP Report and described in detail the DPM and the Washout Testing.

Within the context of the Second IP Report, the IP identified a significant number of Russian athletes who were involved in, or benefitted from, the doping schemes and practices that he uncovered. The IP made publicly available on the IP Evidence Disclosure Package (EDP) website the evidence of the involvement of the Identified Athletes. According to the IP and the IAAF, the evidence on the EDP was retrieved from the hard-drive of Dr Rodchenkov and, after the metadata of all the documents was examined, the documents were determined to have been made contemporaneously to the events.



Mr Ivan Ukhov is a Russian Athlete competing in the High Jump Athletics event at the London 2012 Olympic Games and the Moscow 2013 IAAF World Championships.

In October 2017 the IAAF (World Athletics) reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Russian Athlete based on the findings of the First and Second IP Report and the disclosed evidence.  

In First Instance (CAS 2018_O_5668) the CAS Sole Arbitrator was comfortably satisfactied that the Athlete had violated the IAAF Rules through the use of Desoxymethyltestosterone (DMT) on multiple occasions during the period of 2012 and 2013. Accordingly he decided on 1 February 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. 

Hereafter in February 2019 the Athlete appealed the First Instance Decision (CAS 2018_O_5668) with the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division. The Athlete requested to annul the Appealed Decision and to declare no period of ineligibility on him or, in te alternative, to reduce his period of ineligibility. 

The Athlete disputed three findings of the Sole Arbitrator in the Appealed Decision: 

  • that the Athlete is guilty of committing ADRVs;
  • sanctioning the Athlete to a period of ineligibility of four years as from 1 February 2019; and
  • disqualifying the Athlete's results from 16 July 2012 to 31 December 2015.

The Athlete denied the use of prohibited substances and argued that he was tested before without issues. He disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by the IAAF, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenko and pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence.  

The IAAF finds that the appeal is inadmissible or, in the alternative, that CAS does not have jurisdiction. If the appeals is admissible and CAS has jurisdiction it requested the Panel to dismiss the appeal.  

The IAAF holds that Prof. McLaren uncovered and described a doping scheme of unprecedented proportions that pervaded and implicated the Russian sporting and governmental authorities.

Further the IAAF contended that it didn't seek to prove the charges against the Athlete on the basis of the McLaren Reports alone. The charges are based primarily on the Evidence Disclosure Package (EDP), which underpin the McLaren Reports, including the Washout Schedules.  

After rejecting IAAF's challenge in relation to the nomination of RUSAF as a respondent, the Panel is satisfied, without any doubt, that the present appeal is admissible.  

Considering the filed evidence in this case the majority of the Panel is comfortably satisfied that:

  • the Athlete used Desoxymethyltestosterone (DMT) on or shortly prior to 16 July 2012; and
  • the Athlete used Desoxymethyltestosterone (DMT) on or shortly prior to 28 June 2013. 

In light of the fact that the Athlete used prohibited substances on two separate occasions, the Panel deems that the maximum sanction, based on aggravating circumstances, is not merited in this case. As such, the four-year period of ineligibility imposed in the Appealed Decision is set aside and replaced with a period of ineligibility of 2 years and 9 months. Also the Panel reduced the disqualification period imposed in the Appealed Decision to a period of 2 years, 5 months and 16 days.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 April 2021 that:

1.) The Statement of Appeal filed by Mr. Ivan Ukhov with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) on 22 February 2019 is partly upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the Sole Arbitrator in CAS 2018/O/5668 IAAF v. RUSAF & Ivan Ukhov is set aside.

3.) Mr. Ivan Ukhov is suspended from competition for two (2) years and nine (9) months, starting from 1 February 2019.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Mr. Ivan Ukhov from 16 July 2012 and terminating on 31 December 2014 (inclusive) are disqualified, with all of the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points, prizes and appearance money.

5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be calculated and communicated to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the parties in equal shares.

6.) The parties shall each bear their own legal and other costs incurred in connection with these proceedings.

7.) All further requests for relief are dismissed.

Original document

Parameters

Legal Source
CAS Appeal Awards
Date
6 April 2021
Arbitrator
Drymer, Stephen L.
Gharavi, Hamid G.
Subiotto, Romano F.
Original Source
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
Country
Russian Federation
Language
English
ADRV
Use / attempted use
Legal Terms
Aggravating circumstances
Burdens and standards of proof
Case law / jurisprudence
Circumstantial evidence
Competence / Jurisdiction
Digital evidence / information
Multiple violations
Period of ineligibility
Principle of fairness
Rules & regulations International Sports Federations
Sport/IFs
Athletics (WA) - World Athletics
Other organisations
International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)
RusAthletics - Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF)
Laboratories
Moscow, Russia: Antidoping Centre Moscow [*]
Analytical aspects
Pretesting
Doping classes
S1. Anabolic Agents
Substances
Desoxymethyltestosterone (17α-methyl-5α-androst-2-en-17β-ol)
T/E ratio (testosterone / epitestosterone)
Various
ADAMS
Anti-Doping investigation
Disappearing positive methodology
Disqualified competition results
Doping culture
Falsification / fraud
McLaren reports
Schmid Commission
Tip-off / whistleblower
Washout schedule
Document type
Pdf file
Date generated
14 April 2021
Date of last modification
6 July 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