Doping by athletes could become tougher to hide with new detection method. -  (American Chemical Society (2021) 5 April)

---

ACS Virtual PRESS SESSION 01: Monday, April. 5th at 10 a.m. EDT Welcome to ACS Spring 2021meeting! Please check out the archived video here:

• http://www.acs.org/spring2021doping​

As the world awaits the upcoming Olympic games, a new method for detecting doping compounds in urine samples could level the playing field for those trying to keep athletics clean. Today, scientists report an approach using ion mobility-mass spectrometry to help regulatory agencies detect existing dopants and future “designer” compounds. 

---

ACS Spring 2021 Press Conferences

10 video's

Welcome to ACS Spring 2021! The American Chemical Society (ACS) will be holding scientific press conferences here during the meeting, which runs from April 5 to 16. For press releases on these topics, please visit:

• http://www.acs.org/spring2021releases.

In December 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clomifene.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and the case was referred to the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD). 

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the substance, requested to lift the provisional suspension and for a reduced sanction. He argued that he only as amateur cyclist had participated in competitions and that he was unaware that the substance was prohibited in sport.

the Athlete asserted with medical documents that he had used the substance as treatment for his medical condition whereas his doctor confirmed that he had prescribed the medication Clomifene as treatment of his Hypogonadism sinds 2016. 

The ABCD argued that the violation was intentional and rejected the Athlete’s statement. It contended that the Athlete had produced insufficient information about his medical condition, while Testosterone is the appropriate medication for the treatment of Hypogandism and not Clomifene.

The ABCD argued that the Athlete had received anti-doping education, yet failed to mention Clomifene as medication on his Doping Control Form, nor filed an application for a TUE. Also records show that the Athlete is clearly a professional cyclist who had participated in several official competitions. 

The TJD-AD Rapporteur finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete’s sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

In view of the evidence the Rapporteur deems that Athlete acted intentionally and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction. The Rapporteur regards that the Athlete indeed is a professional cyclist who participated in national and international competitions over the last 10 years. 

The Rapporteur establishes that Clomifene is medically not a likely choice for the treatment of Hypogonadism, yet it can normalize Testosterone levels in men with Hypogonadism. Nevertheless the Rapporteur holds that the Athlete and his doctor acted negligently as they produced insufficient medical information about the condition and the treatment.

Futher the Rapporteur establish that the Athlete failed to mention the Clomifene as medication on the Doping Control Form while he had used the substance since 2016 and participated in many competitions with a significant risk of committing an anti-doping rule violation. 

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 6 April 2021 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 January 2021.

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

• Athletics (middle-distance running)
• Doping (prohibited association)
• Methods of interpretation of legal/regulatory provisions
• Requirements of the prohibited association rule
• Burden and standard of proof under the Russian Anti-
• Doping Rules (ADR) in relation to an anti-doping rule violation
• Appeal arbitration dispute decided ex aequo et bono

---

1. Under Swiss law, if the provision under review is clear and unambiguous, an authority applying it is bound to follow its literal meaning, provided it expresses its true meaning. Only if a text is not clear and if several interpretations are possible, one must determine its true scope by analysing its relation with other provisions (systematic interpretation), its legislative history (historic interpretation) and the spirit and intent of such provision (teleological interpretation). It is not for CAS panels to question the policy or intent of anti-doping rule makers, in particular given that the WADA Code emphasises that “when reviewing the facts and the law of a given case, all (…) adjudicating bodies should be aware of and respect the distinct nature of the anti-doping rules in the Code and the fact that those rules represent the consensus of a broad spectrum of stakeholders around the world with an interest in fair sport”.

2. It is unambiguous that for article 2.10 of the Russian ADR to be applied to an athlete, s/he must have been previously advised in writing by a relevant anti-doping agency of said athlete support person’s disqualifying status and of the potential consequence of a prohibited association and that said athlete can reasonably avoid the association.

3. According to article 3.1 of the Russian ADR, the RUSADA shall have the burden of establishing that an ADR violation has occurred. The Standard of proof shall be whether the RUSADA has established an ADR violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made.

4. It is accepted that the arbitral tribunal could decide ex aequo et bono also in appeal proceedings (pursuant to Article R58 of the CAS Code), if the parties so agree.

---

• 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.

CAS 2020/A/6987 RudolfVerkhovykh v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency RUSADA

• Athletics (sprint)
• Doping (prohibited association)
• Methods of interpretation of legal/regulatory provisions
• Requirements of the prohibited association rule
• Form of the previous advice in writing set forth in the prohibited association rule
• Burden and standard of proof under the Russian Anti-
• Doping Rules (ADR) in relation to an anti-doping rule violation
• Invalid justification for a continued prohibited association between an athlete and a coach
• Appeal arbitration dispute decided ex aequo et bono
• Right to be heard

---

1. Under Swiss law, if the provision under review is clear and unambiguous, an authority applying it is bound to follow its literal meaning, provided it expresses its true meaning. Only if a text is not clear and if several interpretations are possible, must one determine its true scope by analysing its relation with other provisions (systematic interpretation), its legislative history (historic interpretation) and the spirit and intent of such provision (teleological interpretation). It is not for CAS panels to question the policy or intent of anti-doping rule makers, in particular given that the WADA Code emphasises that “when reviewing the facts and the law of a given case, all (…) adjudicating bodies should be aware of and respect the distinct nature of the anti-doping rules in the Code and the fact that those rules represent the consensus of a broad spectrum of stakeholders around the world with an interest in fair sport”.

2. It is unambiguous that for article 2.10 of the Russian ADR to be applied to an athlete, s/he must have been previously advised in writing by a relevant anti-doping agency of said athlete support person’s disqualifying status and of the potential consequence of a prohibited association and that said athlete can reasonably avoid the association.

3. The form of the written notice set forth in art. 2.10 of the Russian ADR is not specified. The model template contained in the WADA Guidelines is not mandatory to use and said Guidelines do not prohibit that such statement be prepared by an athlete upon specific oral instructions from an anti-doping organization.

4. According to article 3.1 of the Russian ADR, the RUSADA shall have the burden of establishing that an ADR violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the RUSADA has established an ADR violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made.

---

• Mr Rudolf Verkhovykh 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.  

However the Athlete continued training unofficially with the Coach until April 2019. Previously on 30 October 2018 the Athlete had produced a written statement indicating that he was aware that he was prohibited to associate with the Coach.

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 October 2018 the Athlete had a meeting with a RUSADA official, during which the Athlete produced a written statement. 

However, the following principal issues are disputed between the Parties: 

• Is it necessary that an athlete has been previously advised in writing by an antidoping agency of the athlete support person's disqualifying status and the potential consequences of prohibited association before an athlete could be sanctioned for a violation of Article 2.10 of the ADR?
• If so, did the Athlete's written statement prepared on 30 October 2018 satisfy this requirement?

The Athlete denied he committed an anti-doping rule violation and requested compensation for sustained damages. He believed that the Coach could train him unofficially and he was unaware of the allegations against the Coach.

He argued that his written statement prepared by him on 30 October 2018 was not a valid written notice within the meaning of Article 2.10 of the ADR. He also asserted that he did not receive any written notice from RUSADA. 

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 established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation of Article 2.10 of the ADR. The Athlete had received a written notice under Article 2.10 of the ADR from RUSADA on 30 October 2018.

Furthermore, it is undisputed between the Parties that the Athlete nonetheless continued to associate with the Coach as the Athlete participated in training activities with the Coach on 15 November 2018 and 22 April 2019 in the Republic of Kyrgyzstan. 

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 on 15 April 2020, by Mr. Rudolf Verkovykh against the decision no. 22/2020 of 17 December 2019 issued by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of Russian Anti-Doping Agency, is dismissed.

2.) The decision no. 22/2020 of 17 December 2019 of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of Russian Anti-Doping Agency is upheld.

3.) The costs of this arbitration, to be determined by the CAS Court Office, shall be paid by Mr. Rudolf Verkovykh.

4.) Each Party shall bear their own costs incurred m connection with the present proceedings.

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

CAS 2020/A/6986 Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency RUSADA

• Athletics (middle-distance running)
• Doping (prohibited association)
• Methods of interpretation of legal/regulatory provisions
• Requirements of the prohibited association rule
• Burden and standard of proof under the Russian Anti-
• Doping Rules (ADR) in relation to an anti-doping rule violation
• Appeal arbitration dispute decided ex aequo et bono

---

1. Under Swiss law, if the provision under review is clear and unambiguous, an authority applying it is bound to follow its literal meaning, provided it expresses its true meaning. Only if a text is not clear and if several interpretations are possible, must one determine its true scope by analysing its relation with other provisions (systematic interpretation), its legislative history (historic interpretation) and the spirit and intent of such provision (teleological interpretation). It is not for CAS panels to question the policy or intent of anti-doping rule makers, in particular given that the WADA Code emphasises that “when reviewing the facts and the law of a given case, all (…) adjudicating bodies should be aware of and respect the distinct nature of the anti-doping rules in the Code and the fact that those rules represent the consensus of a broad spectrum of stakeholders around the world with an interest in fair sport”.

2. It is unambiguous that for article 2.10 of the Russian ADR to be applied to an athlete, s/he must have been previously advised in writing by a relevant anti-doping agency of said athlete support person’s disqualifying status and of the potential consequence of a prohibited association and that said athlete can reasonably avoid the association.

3. According to article 3.1 of the Russian ADR, the RUSADA shall have the burden of establishing that an ADR violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the RUSADA has established an ADR violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made.

4. It is accepted that the arbitral tribunal could decide ex aequo et bono also in appeal proceedings (pursuant to Article R58 of the CAS Code), if the parties so agree.

---

• Ms Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova 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 she continued training with the Coach until the end of 2019. Previously on 21 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 Appellant 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 she committed an anti-doping rule violation and requested compensation for sustained damages. She asserted that before she signed the acknowledgment form on 21 July 2018 the Order 37 itself was not provided to her. She 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 she sustained damages due to the alleged misconduct by RUSADA. She 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 Mrs. Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova on 15 April 2020 against the Russian Anti-Doping Agency with respect to the decision no. 20/2020 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 Mrs. Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova from 15 November 2018 are reinstated.

4.) The request for compensation filed by Mrs. Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova 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 borne by 20% by Mrs. Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova 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 Mrs. Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova in the amount of CHF 4,500 (four thousand five hundred Swiss francs).

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

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.

CAS 2019/A/6167 Ekaterina Galitskaia v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)

Related case:

CAS 2018_O_5712 IAAF vs RusAF & Ekaterina Galitskaia
February 1, 2019

---

• Athletics (hurdles)
• Doping (desoxymethyltestosterone, methasterone, trenbolone, boldenone, 1-testosterone, oxabolone, nandrolone)
• 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.

---

Ms. Yekaterina Viktorovna Galitskaya is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women’s hurdle race athletics event at the London 2012 Olympic Games.

In November 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_5712) the CAS Sole Arbitrator was comfortably satisfactied that the Athlete had violated the IAAF Rules through the use of multiple prohibited substances on multiple occasions. 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_5712) with the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division. The Athlete requested to annul the Appealed Decision and to declare no period of ineligibility on her or, in te alternative, to reduce her 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 15 July 2012 to 31 December 2014.

The Athlete denied the use of prohibited substances and argued that she was tested before without issues. She 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 15 July 2012; and
• the Athlete used Methasterone, Trenbolone, Boldenone, 1-testosterone, Oxabolone and Nandrolone on or shortly prior to 10 July 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 3 years. Finally the Panel upholds the disqualification period imposed in the Appealed Decision of 2 years, 5 months and 15 days. 

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

1.) The Statement of Appeal filed by Ms. Ekaterina Galitskaia 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 of the Sole Arbitrator in CAS 2018/O/5712 IAAF v. RUSAF & Ekaterina Galitskaia is set aside.

3.) Ms. Ekaterina Galitskaia is suspended for a period of three (3) years, starting from 1 February 2019.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Ms. Ekaterina Galitskaia from 15 July 2012 until 31 December 2014 (inclusive) shall remain 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.

CAS 2019/A/6166 Svetlana Shkolina v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)

Related case:

CAS 2018_O_5667 IAAF vs RusAF & Svetlana Shkolina
February 1, 2019

---

• Doping (desoxymethyltestosterone, methasterone)
• 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.

---

Ms. Svetlana Shkolina 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 November 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/5667) the CAS Sole Arbitrator was comfortably satisfied that the Athlete was guilty of having used Prohibited Substances and 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/5667) with the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division. The Athlete requested to annul the Appealed Decision and to declare no period of ineligibility on her or, in te alternative, to reduce her 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 28 July 2015.

The Athlete denied the use of prohibited substances and argued that she was tested before without issues. She 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 Methasterone on or shortly prior to 28 June 2013. 

In light of the fact that the Athlete used prohibited substances on two 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 Ms. Svetlana Shkolina with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) on 22 February 2019 is partially upheld.

2.) The decision of the Sole Arbitrator in CAS 2018/O/5667 IAAF v. RUSAF & Svetlana Shkolina is set aside.

3.) Ms. Svetlana Shkolina is suspended for a period of two (2) years and nine (9) months, starting from 1 February 2019.

4.) All results earned by Ms. Svetlana Shkolina from 16 July 2012 to 31 December 2014 (inclusive) (two (2) years, five (5) months and 16 days 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.

CAS 2019/A/6165 Yuliya Kondakova v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)

Related case:

CAS 2018_O_5713 IAAF vs RusAF & Yuliya Kondakova
February 1, 2019

---

• Athletics (hurdles)
• Doping (oral turinabol, methasterone)
• 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 (World Athletics), 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.

---

 

Ms. Yuliya Kondakova is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women’s hurdle race athletics event at the London 2012 Olympic Games and the Moscow 2013 IAAF World Championships.

In November 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/5713) the CAS Sole Arbitrator was comfortably satisfied that the Athlete was guilty of having used Prohibited Substances and 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/5713) with the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division. The Athlete requested to annul the Appealed Decision and to declare no period of ineligibility on her or, in te alternative, to reduce her 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 17 July 2012 to 16 July 2016.

The Athlete denied the use of prohibited substances and argued that she was tested before without issues. She 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 and the Emails. 

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 Panel is comfortably satisfied that:

• the Athlete had used oral-turinabol (DHCMT) on or shortly prior to 17 July 2012; and
• the Athlete had used methasterone on or shortly prior to 10 July 2013.

In light of the fact that the Athlete used prohibited substances on two 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 15 days. 

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

1.) The Statement of Appeal filed by Ms. Yuliya Kondakova against the International Association of Athletics Federations with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 22 February 2019 is partially upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the Sole Arbitrator in CAS 2018/O/5713 IAAF v. RUSAF & Yuliya Kondakova is set aside.

3.) Ms. Yuliya Kondakova is suspended from competition for a period of two (2) years and nine (9) months, starting as from 1 February 2019.

4.) All results obtained by Ms. Yuliya Kondakova as from 17 July 2012 until 31 December 2014 (inclusive) (two (2) years, five (5) months and 15 days) are withdrawn, 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.

CAS 2019/A/6161 Lyukman Adams v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)

Related cases:

• CAS 2016_A_4703 Lyukman Adams [et al.] [67 Russian Athletes] vs IAAF
  October 14, 2016
• CAS 2016_O_4684 Russian Olympic Committee, Lyukman Adams [et al.] [68 Russian Athletes] vs IAAF
  October 10, 2016
• CAS 2018_O_5671 IAAF vs RusAF & Lyukman Adams
  January 31, 2019
  
  

---

• Athletics (triple jump)
• Doping (dehydroepiandrosterone, desoxymethyltestosterone, nandrolone, trenbolone, oxandrolone, methenolone, ostarine)
• 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
• Email evidence
• 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 do not 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. The presence of a Domain Keys Identified Mail (DKIM) signature on an email makes it “quite highly probable” that the email in question was actually sent on the day and at the time indicated, and that the body of those emails has not been subsequently manipulated or modified (whether knowingly or unknowingly).

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 (World Athletics), 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 Lyukman Adams is a Russian Athlete competing in the Triple Jump Athletics event at the London 2012 Olympic Games, the Moscow 2013 IAAF World Championships and the Sopot 2014 IAAF Indoor 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/5671) the CAS Sole Arbitrator was comfortably satisfied that the Athlete was guilty of having used Prohibited Substances and decided on 31 January 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/5671) 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 31 January 2019; and
• disqualifying the Athlete's results from 16 July 2012 to 14 September 2014.

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 and the Emails.

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 Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete had used seven prohibited substances on at least three occasions, on or shortly prior to 16 July 2012, 6 July 2013 and 26 February 2014.

In light of the fact that the Athlete used prohibited substances on at least three occasions over the course of 19 months, the Panel deems that the maximum sanction is merited. As such, the four-year period of ineligibility imposed in the Appealed Decision will remain. Also the Panel uphold the disqualification period imposed in the Appealed Decision.

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

1.) The Statement of Appeal filed by Mr. Lyukman Adams against the International Association of Athletics Federations with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 21 February 2019 is dismissed.

2.) The decision rendered by the Sole Arbitrator in CAS 2018/O/5671 IAAF v. Russian Athletics Federation (RUSAF) & Lyukman Adams is upheld.

3.) The costs of the arbitration, to be calculated and communicated to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be paid in full by Mr. Lyukman Adams.

4.) Mr. Lyukman Adams all pay a contribution toward the legal and other costs incurred by the International Association of Athletics Federations in connection with the present proceedings in the amount of CHF 2,500 (two thousand five hundred Swiss francs).

5.) All further requests for relief are dismissed.