CAS 2020/ADD/11 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Vladimir Nikolov
- Volleyball
- Doping (methyltestosterone)
- Jurisdiction of the CAS Anti-Doping Division
- Mitigating circumstances influencing on the consequences of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation
- Individual sanction in relation to team’s sport
1. According to Article A2 of the CAS Anti-Doping Division (ADD) Rules, CAS ADD shall be the first-instance authority to conduct proceedings and issue decisions when an alleged anti-doping rule violation has been filed with it and for imposition of any sanctions resulting from a finding that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. CAS ADD has jurisdiction to rule as a first-instance authority on behalf of any sports entity which has formally delegated its powers to CAS ADD to conduct anti-doping proceedings and impose applicable sanctions. CAS ADD shall also have jurisdiction in case of alleged doping violations linked with any re-analysis of samples.
2. Mitigating circumstances, such as lack of intent, lack of knowledge, possibility of consumption of supplements containing the Prohibited Substance and the small quantity of the substance detected, even if proven, are irrelevant to establish whether an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) was committed. An athlete’s fault or negligence are elements taken into consideration in determining the consequences of an ADRV.
3. In case of a team’s sport, there are no “athlete’s results” but only team results. However, on the basis of art. 8.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules, the Olympic Diploma and pin an athlete was awarded as a consequence of his/her participation to the relevant Olympic Games can be ordered to be returned to the IOC as a result of his/her ADRV.
Mr Vladimir Nikolo is a Bulgarina volleyball player at the London 2012 Olympic Games.
In 2018, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012.
In January 2020 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IOC, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methyltestosterone.
Hereafter in August 2020 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) filed a request for Arbitration with the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS ADD) as first-instance authority. The Sole Arbitrator renders a decision without a hearing based on the Parties' written submissions.
The Athlete accepted the test result, admitted the violation and denied intentional use. He was tested before without issues and could not explain how the substance had entered his system. He assumed that a contaminated supplement might have been the source of the positive test since only a very low concentration of the substance was found in his samples.
The IOC contended that the presence of the prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.
The Sole Arbitrator concludes that there is sufficient proof that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. Any mitigating circumstanced invoked by the Athlete in his defence, even if proven, are not relevant to establish whether an anti-doping rule violation was committed.
The Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete may have an opportunity to explain the circumstances at a later stage of the prosecution of the anti-doping rule violation.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 October 2020 that:
- The request for arbitration filed by the International Olympic Committee on 28 August 2020 against Mr. Vladimir Nikolov is upheld.
- Mr. Vladimir Nikolov committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with the International Olympic Committee’s Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXX Olympiad, London 2012.
- Mr. Vladimir Nikolov shall return the Olympic diploma and pin he received on the occasion of the XXX Olympiad, London 2012.
- (…).
- (…).
- All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
