CAS 2020_A_6988 Andrey Isaychev vs RUSADA

CAS 2020/A/6988 Andrey Isaychev v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency RUSADA

  • Mr Andrey Isaychev is a Russian track athlete participating in competitions organized, convened, authorized or recognized by RusAF. 
  • Mr. Vladimir Semenovich Kazarin is a Russian athletics coach, training short, middle and long-distance runners.

On 7 April 2017 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decided to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Coach Kazarin (CAS 2016/A/4480) for committing anti-doping rule violations: Possession, Trafficking, and Administration of multiple Prohibited Substances. 

The Athlete was aware that the Coach had been banned from officially training athletes, yet he continued training unofficially with the Coach. Previously on 19 July 2018 the Athlete had signed an acknowledgment form regarding Order 37 which listed the names of disqualified Russian coaches prohibited from training athletes. 

In June 2019 RUSADA reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for Prohibited Association with the Coach. Consequently the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee decided on 17 December 2019 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. 

Hereafter in April 2020 the Athlete appealed the RUSADA Decision with CAS. 

In this Appeal it is undisputed between the Parties that:

  • (i) the Athlete was aware that the Coach had been banned from training athletes;
  • (ii) the Athlete trained with the Coach after the Coach was banned by the CAS in 2017; and
  • (iii) in July 2018 the Athlete signed the acknowledgment form that referred to the Order 37.

However the Parties disagree whether the Order 37 was presented or made available to the Athlete at the time of signing the acknowledgement form.

The Athlete denied he committed an anti-doping rule violation and requested compensation for sustained damages. He asserted that before he signed the acknowledgment form on 19 July 2018 the Order 37 itself was not provided to him. He and other athletes testified that no one had explained the content of the Order 37, nor made the Order 37 available for their review. 

The Sole Arbitrator scrutinized the Prohibited Association Rule and concludes that, in order to establish a violation of Article 2.10 of the ADR applicable in this case, the Athlete ought to have first been advised in writing by an anti-doping organization with jurisdiction over the Athlete of the Coach's disqualifying status and the potential consequence of prohibited association therewith. Failing to do so, a violation cannot properly be established. 

Further the Sole Arbitrator assessed the issue as to whether an advanced written notice was servered to the Athlete prior to establishing a violation of Article 2.10 of the ADR.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that RUSADA did not establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator that the Athlete was previously advised in writing by an anti-doping agency of the Coach's disqualifying status and the potential consequences of prohibited association.

Accordingly, RUSADA did not establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator that the Athlete infringed Article 2.10 of the ADR. 

The Sole Arbitrator observes that the Athlete did not submit any evidence that he sustained damages due to the alleged misconduct by RUSADA. He did not substantiate in any manner the amount of damages, nor established a nexus between RUSADA’s alleged misconduct and any alleged moral damages or financial loss incurred by the Athlete. 

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

1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Andrey Isaychev on 15 April 2020 against the Russian AntiDoping Agency with respect to the decision no. 21/2020 of 17 December 2019 of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of Russian Anti-Doping Agency is partially upheld.

2.) The decision no. 20/2020 of 17 December 2019 of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of Russian Anti-Doping Agency is set aside.

3.) All individual results earned by Mr. Andrey Isaychev from 15 November 2018 are reinstated.

4.) The request for compensation filed by Mr. Andrey Isaychev is dismissed.

5.) The costs of the present arbitration, to be determined and separately communicated to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be shall be borne by 20% by Mr. Andrey Isaychev and by 80% by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency.

6.) The Russian Anti-Doping Agency is ordered to contribute to the legal fees and expenses incurred by Mr. Andrey Isaychev in the amount of CHF 4,500 (four thousand five hundred Swiss francs).

7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Original document

Parameters

Legal Source
CAS Appeal Awards
Date
6 April 2021
Arbitrator
Novak, Vladimir
Original Source
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
Country
Russian Federation
Language
English
ADRV
Prohibited Association
Legal Terms
ADRV Notice
Burdens and standards of proof
Case law / jurisprudence
Circumstantial evidence
Competence / Jurisdiction
De novo hearing
Ex aequo et bono
Period of ineligibility
Procedural error
Rules & regulations National Sports Organisations & National Anti-Doping Organisations
Sole Arbitrator
Sport/IFs
Athletics (WA) - World Athletics
Other organisations
RusAthletics - Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF)
Российское антидопинговое агентство (РУСАДА) - Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA)
Various
Anti-Doping investigation
Athlete support personnel
Education
Document type
Pdf file
Date generated
14 April 2021
Date of last modification
7 June 2021
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