CAS OG_AD_2018_03 WCF vs Aleksandr Krushelnitckii

3 Dec 2018

CAS anti-doping Division (OG PyeongChang) AD 18/003 World Curling Federation (WCF) v. Aleksandr Krushelnickii

Related case:

CAS OG_AD_2018_03 IOC vs Aleksandr Krushelnitckii - Partial Award
February 22, 2018


  • Curling
  • Doping (meldonium)
  • Burden and standard of proof
  • Admissibility of polygraph test results and expert opinion in relation to such results
  • Principles applicable to the source of the prohibited substance
  • Establishment of the source of the prohibited substance as proof of absence of intent
  • Sabotage

1. According to Article 3.1 of the WCF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR), WCF shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether WCF has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. The standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where these anti-doping rules place the burden of proof upon the athlete alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified acts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability.

2. Where there is no challenge to the conduct of a polygraph test or the expertise of the tester, the evidence should be admitted and taken into account knowing that it rises no higher than adding some force to the athlete’s declaration of innocence but not supplanting the need to carefully consider all other evidence in the case in determining whether the burden of proof has been discharged.

3. It is for an athlete to establish the source of the prohibited substance, not for the anti-doping organization to prove an alternative source to that contended for by the athlete. An athlete has to do so on the balance of probabilities. Evidence establishing that a scenario is possible is not enough to establish the origin of the prohibited substance. An athlete must do so with evidence, not speculation. It is insufficient for an athlete to deny deliberate ingestion of a prohibited substance and, accordingly, to assert that there must be an innocent explanation for its presence in his system. If there are two competing explanations for the presence of the prohibited substance, the rejection of one does not oblige (though it may permit) the hearing body to opt for the other. The conclusion that the other is not proven is always available to the hearing body. In such a situation there are three choices, not just two, for the hearing body.

4. Establishment of the source of the prohibited substance in a sample is not mandated in order to prove an absence of intent. However, the likelihood of finding lack of intent in the absence of proof of source would be extremely rare, and if an athlete cannot prove source it leaves the narrowest of corridors through which the athlete must pass to discharge the burden which lies upon him.

5. The threshold for establishing sabotage as the reason for an ADRV is very high. Any proposed sabotage theory must be supported by reliable and credible evidence, not speculation or assertions of absence of motive. It is insufficient for an athlete to simply raise a hypothesis of sabotage without corroborating evidence and then to simply declare that sabotage is the only possible explanation.


Mr Aleksandr Krushelnitckii is a Russian Athlete competing in the Curling events at the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Winter Games.

On 18 February 2018 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples - provided on 12 and 13 February 2018 - tested positive for the prohibited susbstance Meldonium.

Following notification the Athlete accepted the test results and requested to be heard for the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel (CAS ADD). The World Curling Federation (WCF) requested the Panel to order a provisional suspension beyond the period of the Games.

In a Partial Award the CAS ADD decided on 22 February 2018 to exclude the Athlete from the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Winter Games and to disqualify his obtained results in the Mixed Doubles Curling event at the Olympic Winter Games.

Hereafter the WCF requested the Sole Arbitrator to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. 

Supported by expert witnesses the Athlete argued that the only possible explanation for the presence of Meldonium in his urine samples is that the Meldonium was somehow added into his food or drink after he arrived in the Olympic Village, without his knowledge or involvement. So likely he was the victim of sabotage and should not be suspended at all in accordance with Article 10.4 of the WCF ADR.

In this procedure the Sole Arbitrator addressed the following issues:

  • As it has been established that an ADRV has occurred under Article 2.1 WCF ADR, has the Athlete established that the ADRV was not intentional under Article 10.2.1.1?
  • Has the athlete established that he bears no fault or negligence under Article 10.4 WCF ADR?
  • Has the Athlete established that he bears no significant fault or negligence under Article 10.5.1 WCF ADR?
  • Has the athlete established that the mandatory period of ineligibility of four years should be reduced by reason of Prompt Admission under article 10.6.3, or by reason of the principle of proportionality?
  • What is the quantum of any sanction that should be imposed?
  • What is the commencement date of any period of ineligibility pursuant to Article 10.11 WCF ADR?

The Sole Arbitrator concludes:

  • The Athlete has not established that the ADRV was not intentional under Article 10.2.1 WCF ADR.
  • The Athlete has not established the source of the Prohibited Substance and is not entitled to elimination or reduction of the period of ineligibility under Article 10.4 or Article 10.5 WCF ADR.
  • The Athlete has not established an entitlement to reduction of a period of ineligibility under Article 10.6.3 WCF ADR.
  • The Athlete has not established that there should be any reduction in a period of ineligibility on the basis of the proportionality principle.

Therefore the CAS Anti-doping Division decides on 3 December 2018:

1.) The application of the World Curling Federation is granted and therefore, Mr Aleksandr Krushelnickii is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four years commencing on the date of his voluntary provisional suspension (i.e. 12 February 2018).

2.) The present award is rendered free of charge.

3.) (…).

4.) All other or further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS OG_AD_2016_09 IOC vs Qian Chen

6 Apr 2017

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/009 & 013 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Qian Chen

  • Modern Pentathlon
  • Doping (hydrochlorothiazide)
  • Automatic disqualification based on Art. 9 IOC ADR
  • Proportionality of the disqualification

1. Art. 9 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) clearly states that an anti-doping rule violation in connection with an in-competition test automatically leads to disqualification of the result obtained in the competition in question. No flexibility is provided at all. The automatic disqualification pursuant to this article is nothing but the objective consequence of an objective fact, i.e. the adverse analytical finding. It is an application of a condition of ineligibility retroactively assessed. The aforementioned condition implies that the athlete cannot validly and legitimately compete in a competition of an individual sport during the Olympic Games if a prohibited substance is present in his or her body irrespective of whether the source of that presence can in anyway be linked to a fault or negligence of the athlete and/or irrespective of any effect that substance may have had on his or her performance or not.

2. Within the framework of Art. 9 IOC ADR, and as part of the anti-doping system and the need of the fight against doping in sports, the issue of proportionality has already been taken into account. Indeed, within this system the possibility exists that an athlete who bears no fault or negligence, nor she or he had a known intention to enhance the sportive performance will be automatically disqualified for an established anti-doping rule violation in connection with an in-competition test. However, it is not a question of culpability, but a consequence of circumstances in which an athlete did not meet the equal standards applicable to all the participants in the competition. The mere participation of the athlete in a competition while a prohibited substance was present in his or her body by itself establishes a situation of non-equality between him or her and the other participants in the competition, regardless of the question of culpability or intention.



Ms. Qian Chen is a Chinese Athlete competing in the Women’s Modern Pentathlon event at the 2016 Rio Olympic Games.

On 20 August 2016 and on 30 September 2016 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reported 2 anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete after her A and B samples - provided on 17 August and on 19 August 2016 - tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide. Following notification the IOC filed an application with the CAS Anti-Doping Division and both cases were consolidated.

The Athlete accepted the test results, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested to uphold her results at the Games. She demonstrated with reports issued by two Chinese Labs that contaminated fruit sugar tablets were the source of the positive tests.

The IOC requested the Sole Arbitrator to exclude the Athlete from the 2016 Rio Olympic Games and to disqualify her results because of the 2 anti-doping rule violation she had committed. Further the IOC contended that the findings in the Chinese Lab reports were erroneous.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. Under the IOC ADR disqualification of the Athlete's results is an automatic consequence of an anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the submissions of the Athlete in respect of the possible source and the possible explanation for the existence of the prohibited substance in her body are irrelevant to the case at hand, however will be examined thoroughly and dealt with by her International Federation in the process of the result management in terms of sanctions beyond the Games.

Therefore the Sole Arbitrator decides on 6 April 2017:

1.) The application CAS AD 16/09 is deemed withdrawn.

2.) The application CAS AD 16/13 is granted.

3.) The Athlete is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.1 of the IOC ADR.

4.) The results obtained by the Athlete in the Women’s Modern Pentathlon event at the Olympic Games Rio 2016, in which she finished 4th, are disqualified with all consequences, including forfeiture of her Olympic diploma.

5.) The Athlete is ordered to return her diploma.

6.) The Union Internationale de Pentathlon Moderne is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.

World Athletics 2021 WA vs Diana Chemtai Kipyokei

19 Dec 2022

In November 2021 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics reported that the Kenyan Athlete Diana Chemtai Kipyokei tested positive for the prohibited substance Triamcinolone acetonide.

Following notification the Athlete first explained that she underwent medical treatment for her injury and that her doctor in September 2021 had administered two injections of cortisone. Later she acknowledged that indeed Triamcinolone acetonide was administered.

However the AIU deemed that both her explanations were insufficient to explain the presence of Triamcinolone acetonide in her sample. Also she failed to produce any corroborating evidence in support of her explanations.

Thereupon the Athlete provided to the AIU medical documents from the Uasin Gishu County Hospital about the medical treatment she underwent and the administration of  Triamcinolone acetonide. The AIU concluded that the Athlete's explanations and Medical documents did not demonstrate that Triamcinolone had been administered via a permitted route.

In March 2022 the AIU requested the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) to verify the medical information the Athlete had produced. As a result in April 2022 the Uasin Gishu County Hospital denied that the Athlete had received any medical treatment in the hospital and determined that her medical documents were falsifications.

Consequently in June 2022 the AIU reported two anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for Presence and Tampering. The AIU ordered a provisional suspension in June 2022 and issued a Notice of Charge in October 2022.

Thereupon the Athlete admitted that she had paid her doctor to produce falsified medical documents. Hereafter she failed to respond to the Notice of Charge within the set deadline. Also she failed to sign and return the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptace of Consequences form within the set deadline.

In view of aggravating circumstances due to the Athlete's attempt to tamper the AIU nevertheless finds that there is no evidence that the her use of the prohibited substance was intentional. Further the AIU deems that her anti-doping rule violations shall be considered together as one single first anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the AIU decides on 19 December 2022 to impose a 6 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 June 2022.

World Athletics 2022 WA vs Purity Cherotich Rionoripo

19 Dec 2022

In July 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Purity Cherotich Rionoripo after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide.

After notification the Athlete accepted the test result and explained with evidence that she had used prescribed medication and Furosemide as treatment for her injury. Thereupon the AIU requested the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) to verify the medical information the Athlete had produced.

Hereafter the Kenyan Hospital confirmed that the Athlete indeed underwent medical treatment for her injury in May 2022. However the Hospital denied that Lasix (Furosemide) had been prescribed and determined that the Athlete's prescription for Lasix was a falsification.

Consequently in November 2022 the AIU reported a second anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for Tampering due to the falsified documents she had provided to the AIU.

Following notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU. Further she signed and returned to the AIU the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form.

Despite the Athlete had attempted to tamper with any part of the doping control process the AIU finds that the Athlete's use of Lasix was not intentional. Yet the AIU deems that there are no grounds to reduce the sanction for Tampering.

The AIU considers that both violations shall be treated as standalone first violations and that the 4 year period of ineligibility for Tampering must be served consecutively to the 2 year period of ineligibility for Presence. Because the Athlete had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form she received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 19 December 2022 to impose a 5 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 November 2022.

World Athletics 2022 WA vs Alice Jepkemboi Kimutai

19 Dec 2022

In November 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Alice Jepkemboi Kimutai after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Androsterone, Etiocholanolone, Testosterone and its Adiols .

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU. The Athlete did not demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

Because the Athlete signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form she received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 19 December 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 November 2022.

World Athletics 2022 WA vs Maiyo Johnstone Kibet

19 Dec 2022

In July 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Maiyo Johnstone Kibet after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU. The Athlete did not demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. He explained that he had received an iron injection and used a painkiller and a vitamin supplement.

Because the Athlete signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form he received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 19 December 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 July 2022.

World Athletics 2022 WA vs Mark Otieno Odhiambo

7 Dec 2022

In July 2021 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and in August 2021 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) reported anti-doping rule violations against the Kenyan Athlete Mark Otieno Odhiambo after his samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methasterone.

The Athlete provided a sample in Kenya in June 2021 and a second sample in July 2021 during the Tokyo Olympic Games. After notification in July 2021 a provisional suspension was ordered and the CAS ADD deemed on 22 November 2021 that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. Both IOC and ADAK referred their cases to the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU).

The Athlete believed that a contaminated supplement was the source of the positive tests and with evidence he showed that he had purchased and used the supplement Amino Hardcore in Kenya. Thereupon analysis of this supplement confirmed the presence of Methasterone in this product.

The Athlete asserted that he continuously exercised extreme caution of products before purchasing and using supplements and he mentioned the use of this supplement on the Doping Control Form.

Hereafter both parties were unable to reach a settlement of the matter in July 2022. Following the Notice of Charge in August 2022 the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Disciplinary Tribunal.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and argued that a comtaminated supplement was the source. Further he asserted that there had been a departure of the ISL by the Bloemfontein Laboratory and that the CAS ADD had breached the principles of natural justice.

Word Athletics contended that there was no departure of the ISL by the Bloemfontein Laboratory wheras the Athlete had not disputed the validity of the positive test for Methasterone reported by this Laboratory.

World Athletics denied that previously the CAS ADD had violated any principles of natural justice. Moreover the Panel addressed the Athlete's arguments in this matter and concludes that the progress of the CAS ADD proceedings was entirely straightforeward and proper.

Following assessment of the evidence and the Athlete's conduct in this case the Panel finds that the Athlete had demonstrated that the source of the positive test was the supplement Amino Hardcore and that the prohibited substance was not disclosed on the product label.

The Panel determines that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that both anti-doping rule violations shall be considered together as one single first violation. Furthermore the Panel concludes that the Athlete did not manifestly disregard the risk of contamination and made a reasonable Internet search regarding the supplement Amino Hardcore.

Nevertheless a majority of the Panel finds that there are no grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence because the Athlete had not exercised a high level of caution before using the contamined product.

Therfore on 7 December 2022 the Disciplinary Tribunal decides to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 31 July 2021.

World Athletics 2022 WA vs Aras Kaya

16 Dec 2022

In December 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Aras Kaya after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU. The Athlete did not demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

Because the Athlete signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form he received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 16 December 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 December 2022.

CCES Annual Report 2021-2022(Canada)

15 Dec 2022

Annual report 2020-2021 / Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES). - Ottawa : CCES, 2022

World Athletics 2022 WA vs Randolph Ross

12 Dec 2022

In June 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics reported a third Whereabouts Filing Failure within a 12 month period regarding the American Athlete Randolph Ross.

Thereupon the Athlete provided to the AIU his explanation for the potential Whereabouts Failure, together with various supporting documents, including a copy of a system generated e-mail allegedly confirming an update made to his Whereabouts information for the relevant period.

Following investigations the AIU established that the System Generated E-mail was likely to have been altered/manipulated by the Athlete in an attempt to avoid responsibility for a potential Whereabouts Failures violation on the eve of the 2022 World Championships in Eugene, Oregon.

Hereafter in July 2022 the AIU reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for Tampering with any part of Doping Control and for his third Whereabouts Filing Failure. 

After notification the Athlete admitted the violations, waived his right for hearing and accepted the proposed sanction in accordance with the Case Resolution Agreement.

Therefore the AIU decides on 12 December 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 July 2022.

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