FIM 2016 FIM vs Anastasiy Nifontova - Settlement

13 Mar 2919

In November 2016 the International Motorcycling Federation (FIM) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian rider Anastasiy Nifontova after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Meldonium. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

The Athlete demonstrated with medical evidence that the violation was not intentional because she underwent treatment for her health problems and had used prescribed medication which she mentioned on the Doping Control Form.

FIM accepts that the violation was not intentional due to the prescribed medication for a legitimate medical condition but deems that there are no grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

The parties in this case reached a settlement agreement and accordingly on 13 March 2019 a 2 year period of ineligibility was imposed on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 14 November 2016.

WA 2020 WA vs Daniel Kinyua Wanjiru

8 Oct 2020

In April 2020 the the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Daniel Kinyua Wanjiru after an AIU Expert Panel concluded unanimously in September 2019 in their Joint Expert Opinion that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping. 

This conclusion of the AIU Expert Panel was based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 20 April 2017 until 25 April 2019 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP). 

After notification the Athlete submitted several explanations and objections to the AIU about the circumstances surrounding the collected samples. However after consideration the Expert Panel rejected the Athlete’s explanations and objections in their 2nd (March 2020), 3rd (June 2020) and 4th (August 2020) joint report. A provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal. 

The AIU contended that the abnormalities in the heamatological module of the Athlete’s ABP from sample 14 indicate blood manipulation since it had extremely abnormal HGB values. Supported by expert witnesses the Athlete denied the violation, disputed the reliablility of the ABP and asserted that the values in his ABP could be explained due to his travel from altitude to sea level. 

Based on the formidable scientific evidence the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the AIU has discharged its burden that blood manipulation is the irresistible explanation for the abnormal HB and OFF-score values in sample 14 in the Athlete’s ABP. The Panel holds that the AIU and the Expert Panel established that the presented doping scenario caused the abnormalities in the Athlete’s ABP and that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Disciplinary Tribunal decides on 8 October 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 9 December 2020.

iNADO Update #2020-10

5 Oct 2020

iNADO Update (2020) 10 (5 October)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)



Contents:

iNADO Community 

  • First NADO & RADO Capability Register... your contribution is needed!
  • Annual Reports 2019
  • Education App of iNADO Members awarded

iNADO Bulletin Board 

  • New Episode of iNADO Live Chat
  • Vacancy at International Paralympic Committee

People 

  • New General Manager of Anti-Doping Singapore
  • New Chair for Drug Free Sport New Zealand

Athletes Voice 

  • Caster Semenya and the Search for a fair Solution

Science

  • Athletes willingness to dope reduces after their Coaches get trained in need Supportive Communication Skills

Practical Developments 

  • Lessons learned from Covid-19: WADA forms Strategic Testing Expert Group
  • International Triathlon Union becomes World Triathlon

Feature of the Month 

  • #NonStopClean
  • New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

ISR 2020 NGB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2020002 T

1 Oct 2020

In April 2020 the Dutch Weightlifting Association (NGB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Person after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Drostanolone, Methandienone and Methylphenidate.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Person waived his right for hearing and did not file a statement in his defence. The case was settled based on the filed submissions.

The ISR-NGB Disciplinary Committee finds that the presence of multiple prohibited substances had been establised in the Person's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Also the Committee deems that the Person failed to file a statement in his defence and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction

Therefore the ISR-NGB Disciplinary Committee decides on 1 October 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Person starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 April 2020.

Fees and expenses for this committee shall be borne by the Person.

ADAK 2019 ADAK vs Recho Jerubet Kosgei

1 Oct 2020

In May 2019 the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Recho Jerubet Kosgei after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Androsterone and Etiocholanolone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. There were substantial delays in the proceedings attributed to the Athlete and due to the COVID-19 Pandemic while the Athlete failed to file a statement in her defence nor attended the hearing of the Kenya Sports Disputes Tribunal.

ADAK requested the Panel to impose a 4 year sanction and argued that she committed an anti-doping rule violation because the presence of prohibited substances had been established her sample. Further ADAK contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional nor how the substances entered her system. The Athlete in her previous submission only produced protests of innocence and suggested without evidence that the supplements, medication or other products had caused the positive test.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and didn't demonstrate that the violation was not intentional nor how the substances entered her system. Also the Athlete failed to respond to the charges and failed to participate in the proceedings. She was duly notified and she repeatedly seeked adjournments and postponements of the hearing.

Therefore the Kenya Sport Dispute Tribunal decides on 1 October 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 20 May 2019.

WADA International Standard for Laboratories (ISL) 2021

1 Oct 2020

World Anti-Doping Code International Standard for Laboratories / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2020. - (International Standard for Laboratories (ISL), version 11.0, in force 1 January 2021)



The International Standard for Laboratories first came into effect in November 2002. Further revisions were made after that date. The enclosed International Standard for Laboratories was approved by the WADA Executive Committee on 15 September 2021. The effective date of ISL version 11.0 is 1 January 2021.

In November 2019, a revised version 10.0 of the ISL -- which was reviewed in order to reflect and incorporate relevant changes and update the document in line with new technical, scientific and regulatory developments -- was approved by WADA’s ExCo in May 2019 and became effective on 1 November 2019. Subsequently, a revised version 11.0 of the ISL was drafted to ensure consistency with the 2021 Code and the other Standards. The amended draft 11.0 was circulated for stakeholder consultation from 10 December 2019 to 4 March 2020 and, further to stakeholder feedback, was finalized by the ISL working group and approved by the ExCo. It reflects the aim of WADA and its stakeholders to further improve and harmonize Laboratory-related anti-doping rules and activities.

The modifications within version 11.0, as compared to the current 2019 ISL v. 10.0, include:

  1. Removal of footnotes and their incorporation into the main text as comments;
  2. Reorganization of some articles in order to make the reading easier to follow and in line with the new ISO/IEC 17025 standard structure and Laboratory sample flow (e.g. storage of samples at the end of the analytical testing process);
  3. Revision of the terms and definitions section to include new 2021 Code, new ISL and International Standard for Results Management (ISRM) definitions;
  4. Important modifications and updates to Section 4 (Laboratory Accreditation Requirements) in regards, for example to: candidate and probationary laboratories; flexible scope of accreditation; Laboratory independence; Laboratory disciplinary process and consequences of a Laboratory analytical testing restriction; suspension or revocation of the WADA accreditation; as well as, process for approval of a Laboratory by WADA for blood Athlete Biological Passport analysis.
  5. Updates to Section 5 (Analysis of Samples), including the translocation of some articles, which has been done in line with the new ISO/IEC 17025 structure and Laboratory sample flow. This section includes important changes and clarifications on requirements for Laboratory security, including control and security of electronic data and information; “A” and “B” sample confirmation procedures; additional analyses that Laboratories may perform on doping control samples in addition to routine anti-doping testing; long-term sample storage and further analysis; reporting of results and secondary use (research, quality assurance) and disposal of samples.
  6. Updates to Section 6 (External Quality Assessment Scheme Program) and Section 7 (Laboratory Performance Evaluation), regarding the source of double-blind EQAS samples, reporting of blind and double-blind samples in a timely manner and evaluation of Laboratories under suspension;
  7. Further clarifications in some provisions of Annex A: Code of Ethics; and
  8. A new Annex B: Accreditation for Major Events, whereas the former Annex B becomes Annex C: Procedural Rules.

WADA Prohibited List 2021

30 Sep 2020

Prohibited List January 2021 : The World Anti-Doping Code International Standard / World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). - Montreal : WADA, 2020

The Prohibited List is a mandatory International Standard as part of the World Anti-Doping Program.
The List is updated annually following an extensive consultation process facilitated by WADA. The effective date of the List is 1 January 2021.

CAS 2017_A_5444 Olga Zaytseva vs IOC

24 Sep 2020

CAS 2017/A/5444 Olga Zaytseva v. International Olympic Committee (IOC)

Related cases:

IOC 2017 IOC vs Olga Zaytseva - Decision
December 22, 2017

IOC 2017 IOC vs Olga Zaytseva - Operative Part
November 27, 2017



Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof. Richard McLaren as Independent Person (IP) on 18 July 2016 and 9 December 2016, showed detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected during the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IP reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample.

As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. At the same time the IOC Schmid Commission started their investigations to establish the facts on the basis of documented, independent and impartial evidence.

All the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establish whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated. The findings in the IP Reports were considered in detail and both Commissions conclude that samples or urine collected from Russian Athletes were tampered with in Sochi in a systematic manner and as part of an organized scheme. The Commissions further conclude that it was not possible that the athletes were not fully implicated. They were also the main beneficiaries of the scheme.

The IOC Commissions find that Prof. McLaren’s findings are not only based on the evidence provided by Dr Rodchenkov in his interviews, but on a wealth of other corroborating evidence, including other witnesses, the forensic examination of the sample bottles, the evidence showing abnormal salt results and the additional elements coming from DNA analysis. The corroborating evidence considered by Prof. McLaren included further objective elements, such as e-mails confirming that athletes were protected through different methods.



Olga Zaytseva is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women's Biathlon Events at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games.
In October 2017 the IOC Disciplinary Commission has reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for tampering, conspiracy and use of prohibited substances. 

Consequently the IOC Disciplinary Commission decided on 22 December 2017 to declare Olga Zaytseva ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games. Further the Commission disqualified the Athlete and her team from the events at the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games including forfeiture of any medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes. 



In December 2017 the Athlete Olga Zaytseva appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). In January 2018 the appeals of the Athlete Olga Zaytseva together with the appeals of the Athletes Olga Vilukhina (CAS 2017/A/5434 and Yana Romanova (CAS 2017/A/5435) were stayed until reasoned awards were issued by the CAS in the cases: 

  • CAS 2017_A_5379 Alexander Legkov vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5380 Evgeniy Belov vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5422 Aleksandr Zubkov vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5433 Maria Orlova vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5436 Maxim Vylegzhanin vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5441 Alexander Rumyantsev vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5445 Yulia Chekaleva vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5446 Anastasia Dotsenko vs IOC

After the rendering of these reasonded decisions the CAS proceedings of the Athletes Olga Zaytseva, Olga Vilukhina and Yana Romanova  were resumed in December 2018. 

The Athlete disputed the reliability of the filed evidence provided by the IOC, Prof. McLaren and Dr. Rodchenko and pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence. She argued that the IOC did not only failed to provide any credible evidence on her supposed involvement in the so-called organised doping scheme or of her being aware of any doping scheme supposedly tailored to protect her, but did not even establish that she ever used a prohibited substance. The IOC merely relies on a speculation which is not admissible when the issues at stake are so serious and carry severe consequences for the Athlete. 

The IOC contended that the Athlete had personally committed various anti-doping rule violations, namely: 

  • using a prohibited substance, i.e. the Duchess Cocktail, and using a prohibited method, i.e. urine substitution;
  • tampering with any part of the doping control; and
  • cover-up of and complicity in the commission of an ADRV.

The IOC, in its written submissions, provided a detailed description of the doping and cover-up scheme that allegedly operated in Russia from 2011 to 2015.

The IOC contended that the McLaren Reports and the Schmid Report both identified the Disappearing Positive Methodology as the origin of the institutionalised doping and cover-up scheme while Dr. Rodchenkov identified the main aspects to the Disappearing Positive Methodology in his affidavits. 

With regard to the Athlete’s implication in this scheme, the IOC asserted that:

- The Athlete’s B sample bottles had multiple T marks and elevated sodium levels, i.e. evidence of tampering.
- The Athlete’s implication in the doping scheme was also demonstrated by the evidence of Dr. Rodchenkov. 

The IOC requested the Panel to confirm the existence of a generalised doping scheme in Russia before and during the Sochi Games, one which enabled the Athlete to participate in a doping-control free environment. Also th IOC requested the Panel, to find a link (even contextual) between the Athlete or one of her urine samples and the generalised doping scheme which is sufficient to allow it to conclude that the Athlete has committed one or more of the alleged ADRVs. 

Having considered the submissions of the Parties, the written evidence as well as the oral evidence and testimonies provided at the hearing the, in the present case, the Panel is comfortably satisfied that, the elevated sodium level found in the Athlete’s B sample constitutes reliable evidence to support the conclusion that the urine the Athelte provided was likely to have been deliberately swapped against clean urine that the Athlete had provided in advance to the Sochi Games.

Thus, the Panel finds to its comfortable satisfaction, on the basis of the evidence before it, that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation for use of a prohibited substance and use of a prohibited method. However the Panel is not comfortably satisfied that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation for tampering, neither for complicity.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 September 2018 that: 

1.) The appeal filed by Ms. Olga Zaytseva on 6 December 2017 against the decision of the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 1 December 2017 is partially upheld.

2.) Paragraph I (a) of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 1 December 2017 is modified as follows:

I. The Athlete, Olga ZAYTSEVA :

a) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, in connection with the World Anti-Doping Code.

3.) Paragraph V of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 1 December 2017 is annulled and replaced as follows:

V. Olga ZAYTSEVA is declared ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games (i.e. PyeongChang 2018).

4.) All other rulings contained in the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 1 December 2017 are maintained.

5.) (…).

6.) (…).

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

CAS 2017_A_5435 Yana Romanova vs IOC

24 Sep 2020

CAS 2017/A/5435 Yana Romanova v. International Olympic Committee (IOC)

Related case:

IOC 2017 IOC vs Yana Romanova - Operative Part
November 27, 2017



Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof. Richard McLaren as Independent Person (IP) on 18 July 2016 and 9 December 2016, showed detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected during the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IP reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample. 

As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. At the same time the IOC Schmid Commission started their investigations to establish the facts on the basis of documented, independent and impartial evidence. 

All the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establish whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated. The findings in the IP Reports were considered in detail and both Commissions conclude that samples or urine collected from Russian Athletes were tampered with in Sochi in a systematic manner and as part of an organized scheme. The Commissions further conclude that it was not possible that the athletes were not fully implicated. They were also the main beneficiaries of the scheme. 

The IOC Commissions find that Prof. McLaren’s findings are not only based on the evidence provided by Dr Rodchenkov in his interviews, but on a wealth of other corroborating evidence, including other witnesses, the forensic examination of the sample bottles, the evidence showing abnormal salt results and the additional elements coming from DNA analysis. The corroborating evidence considered by Prof. McLaren included further objective elements, such as e-mails confirming that athletes were protected through different methods.



Yana Romanova is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women's Biathlon Events at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. In December 2016 the IOC Disciplinary Commission has reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for tampering, conspiracy and use of prohibited substances. 

Consequently the IOC Disciplinary Commission decided on 27 November  2017 to declare Yana Romanova ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games. Further the Commission disqualified the Athlete and her team from the events at the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games including forfeiture of any medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes. 


In December 2017 the Athlete Yana Romanova appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). In January 2018 the appeals of the Athlete Yana Romanova together with the appeals of the Athletes Olga Vilukhina (CAS 2017/A/5434 and Olga Zaytseva (CAS 2017/A/5444) were stayed until reasoned awards were issued by the CAS in the cases: 

  • CAS 2017_A_5379 Alexander Legkov vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5380 Evgeniy Belov vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5422 Aleksandr Zubkov vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5433 Maria Orlova vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5436 Maxim Vylegzhanin vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5441 Alexander Rumyantsev vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5445 Yulia Chekaleva vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5446 Anastasia Dotsenko vs IOC

After the rendering of these reasoned decisions the CAS proceedings of the Athletes Yana Romanova, Olga Vilukhina and Olga Zaytseva were resumed in December 2018. 

The Athlete disputed the reliability of the filed evidence provided by the IOC, Prof. McLaren and Dr. Rodchenko and pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence. She argued that the IOC did not only fail to provide any credible evidence on her supposed involvement in the so-called organised doping scheme or of her being aware of any doping scheme supposedly tailored to protect her, but did not even establish that she ever used a prohibited substance. The IOC merely relies on a speculation which is not admissible when the issues at stake are so serious and carry severe consequences for the Athlete. 

The IOC contended that the Athlete had personally committed various anti-doping rule violations, namely: 

  • using a prohibited substance, i.e. the Duchess Cocktail, and using a prohibited method, i.e. urine substitution;
  • tampering with any part of the doping control; and
  • cover-up of and complicity in the commission of an ADRV.

The IOC, in its written submissions, provided a detailed description of the doping and cover-up scheme that allegedly operated in Russia from 2011 to 2015.

The IOC contended that the McLaren Reports and the Schmid Report both identified the Disappearing Positive Methodology as the origin of the institutionalised doping and cover-up scheme while Dr. Rodchenkov identified the main aspects to the Disappearing Positive Methodology in his affidavits. 

With regard to the Athlete’s implication in this scheme, the IOC asserted that:

- The Athlete’s B sample bottle had multiple T marks, i.e. evidence of tampering.

- The Athlete’s implication in the doping scheme was also demonstrated by the evidence of Dr. Rodchenkov. 

The IOC requested the Panel to confirm the existence of a generalised doping scheme in Russia before and during the Sochi Games, one which enabled the Athlete to participate in a doping-control free environment. Also the IOC requested the Panel, to find a link (even contextual) between the Athlete or one of her urine samples and the generalised doping scheme which is sufficient to allow it to conclude that the Athlete has committed one or more of the alleged ADRVs. 

Having considered the submissions of the Parties, the written evidence as well as the oral evidence and testimonies provided at the hearing the Panel concludes that, in the present case, none of the acts alleged by the IOC has been established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel. The Panel further finds that the probative value of circumstantial evidence has its limits and that even when taken together and put into context, in the present case the different strands of factual and forensic evidence submitted by the IOC do not lead the Panel to be comfortably satisfied that the Athlete was personally and knowingly implicated in any of the alleged acts. 

Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Athlete’s appeal against the decision of the IOC DC rendered on 27 November 2017 shall be upheld and the appealed decision set aside. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 September 2018 that: 

1.) The appeal filed by Ms. Yana Romanova on 1 December 2017 against the International Olympic Committee with respect to the decision of the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 27 November 2017 is upheld.

2.) The decision of the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 27 November 2017 is partially set aside, except for points II, III, V and VI.

3.) All results achieved by Ms. Yana Romanova upon the occasion of the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia in individual events, are reinstated, with all resulting consequences.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

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

CAS 2017_A_5434 Olga Vilukhina vs IOC

24 Sep 2020

CAS 2017/A/5434 Olga Vilukhina v. International Olympic Committee (IOC)

Related case:

IOC 2017 IOC vs Olga Vilukhina - Operative Part
November 27, 2017


Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof. Richard McLaren as Independent Person (IP) on 18 July 2016 and 9 December 2016, showed detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected during the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IP reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample.

As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. At the same time the IOC Schmid Commission started their investigations to establish the facts on the basis of documented, independent and impartial evidence.

All the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establish whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated. The findings in the IP Reports were considered in detail and both Commissions conclude that samples or urine collected from Russian Athletes were tampered with in Sochi in a systematic manner and as part of an organized scheme. The Commissions further conclude that it was not possible that the athletes were not fully implicated. They were also the main beneficiaries of the scheme.

The IOC Commissions find that Prof. McLaren’s findings are not only based on the evidence provided by Dr Rodchenkov in his interviews, but on a wealth of other corroborating evidence, including other witnesses, the forensic examination of the sample bottles, the evidence showing abnormal salt results and the additional elements coming from DNA analysis. The corroborating evidence considered by Prof. McLaren included further objective elements, such as e-mails confirming that athletes were protected through different methods.



Olga Vilukhina is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women's Biathlon Events at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. In December 2016 the IOC Disciplinary Commission has reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for tampering, conspiracy and use of prohibited substances. 

Consequently the IOC Disciplinary Commission decided on 27 November  2017 to declare Olga Vilukhina ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games. Further the Commission disqualified the Athlete and her team from the events at the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games including forfeiture of any medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes.



In December 2017 the Athlete Olga Vilukhina appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). In January 2018 the appeals of the Athlete Olga Vilukhina together with the appeals of the Athletes Yana Romanova (CAS 2017/A/5435) and Olga Zaytseva (CAS 2017/A/5444) were stayed until reasoned awards were issued by the CAS in the cases:

  • CAS 2017_A_5379 Alexander Legkov vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5380 Evgeniy Belov vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5422 Aleksandr Zubkov vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5433 Maria Orlova vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5436 Maxim Vylegzhanin vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5441 Alexander Rumyantsev vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5445 Yulia Chekaleva vs IOC
  • CAS 2017_A_5446 Anastasia Dotsenko vs IOC

After the rendering of these reasonded decisions the CAS proceedings of the Athletes Olga Vilukhina, Yana Romanova and Olga Zaytseva were resumed in December 2018. 

The Athlete disputed the reliability of the filed evidence provided by the IOC, Prof. McLaren and Dr. Rodchenko and pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence. She argued that the IOC did not only failed to provide any credible evidence on her supposed involvement in the so-called organised doping scheme or of her being aware of any doping scheme supposedly tailored to protect her, but did not even establish that she ever used a prohibited substance. The IOC merely relies on a speculation which is not admissible when the issues at stake are so serious and carry severe consequences for the Athlete. 

The IOC contended that the Athlete had personally committed various anti-doping rule violations, namely:

  • using a prohibited substance, i.e. the Duchess Cocktail, and using a prohibited method, i.e. urine substitution;
  • tampering with any part of the doping control; and
  • cover-up of and complicity in the commission of an ADRV.

The IOC, in its written submissions, provided a detailed description of the doping and cover-up scheme that allegedly operated in Russia from 2011 to 2015.
The IOC contended that the McLaren Reports and the Schmid Report both identified the Disappearing Positive Methodology as the origin of the institutionalised doping and cover-up scheme while Dr. Rodchenkov identified the main aspects to the Disappearing Positive Methodology in his affidavits.

With regard to the Athlete’s implication in this scheme, the IOC asserted that:
- The Athlete’s B sample bottle had multiple T marks, i.e. evidence of tampering.
- The Athlete’s implication in the doping scheme was also demonstrated by the evidence of Dr. Rodchenkov. 

The IOC requested the Panel to confirm the existence of a generalised doping scheme in Russia before and during the Sochi Games, one which enabled the Athlete to participate in a doping-control free environment. Also th IOC requested the Panel, to find a link (even contextual) between the Athlete or one of her urine samples and the generalised doping scheme which is sufficient to allow it to conclude that the Athlete has committed one or more of the alleged ADRVs. 

Having considered the submissions of the Parties, the written evidence as well as the oral evidence and testimonies provided at the hearing the Panel concludes that, in the present case, none of the acts alleged by the IOC has been established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel. The Panel further finds that the probative value of circumstantial evidence has its limits and that even when taken together and put into context, in the present case the different strands of factual and forensic evidence submitted by the IOC do not lead the Panel to be comfortably satisfied that the Athlete was personally and knowingly implicated in any of the alleged acts. 

Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Athlete’s appeal against the decision of the IOC DC rendered on 27 November 2017 shall be upheld and the appealed decision set aside. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 September 2018 that: 

1.) The appeal filed by Ms. Olga Vilukhina on 1 December 2017 against the decision of the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 27 November 2017 is upheld.

2.) The decision of the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 27 November 2017 is partially set aside except for points II, III, IV, VI, VII and VIII.

3.) All results achieved by Ms. Olga Vilukhina upon the occasion of the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia in individual events, are reinstated, with all resulting consequences.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

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

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