CAS 2021_A_8458 WADA vs INADA & Rani Rana

31 Mar 2023

CAS 2021/A/8458 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Indian National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) & Rani Rana

On 5 October 2021 the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of India (ADDPI) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the wrestler Rani Rana after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Drostanolone.

Hereafter in November 2021 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the ADDPI Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 4 years on the Athlete.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She requested for a reduced sanction and asserted that she acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

She explained with medical evidence that she underwent treatment for her knee injury and that she had received a prescribed Drostoprime injection. She argued that her doctor was a certified medical practitioner and she had informed him that she was an athlete.

WADA did not accept the Athlete's explanation that the prohibited substance entered her system by injection with Drostoprime in December 2019. Moreover there are inconsistencies in the Athlete's explanation, nor was there a legitimate medical reason to treat a knee injury with a Drostoprime injection.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the Parties' evidence and arguments and determines that:

  • The Athlete failed to demonstrate with sufficient corroborating evidence on how the prohibited substance had entered her system.
  • Her trust in the doctor and his medical treatment was unfounded.
  • She failed to establish that she acted unintentionally, nor with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 31 March 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed by WADA on 16 November 2021 against the decision of the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of the Indian National Anti-Doping Agency of 5 October 2021 is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered on 5 October 2021 by the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of the NADA is set aside.

3.) Rani Rana is sanctioned with the period of ineligibility of four years starting from 28 December 2019.

4.) The results achieved by Rani Rana from 28 December 2019 are disqualified with all respective consequences, including forfeiture of medals, points, and prize money.

5.) (…).

6.) (…).

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

CAS 2022_A_8653 Elena Danilova vs World Triathlon & WADA

30 Aug 2023

CAS 2022/A/8653 Ms Elena Danilova v World Triathlon & World Anti-Doping Agency


Related case:

CAS 2021_ADD_23 World Triathlon vs Elena Danilova
January 17, 2022

In 2016, Professor Richard McLaren issued two reports about systemic doping in Russia. These reports identified a significant number of Russian athletes who were involved in, or benefitted from, the doping schemes and practices that he uncovered.

Hereafter in January 2019 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) recovered the internal database of the Moscow Laboratory (LIMS). Following investigation of allegations of organized doping practices, and in particular of the LIMS, WADA provided international federations with investigation reports on the athletes implicated in these organized doping practices.

As a result in May 2020 World Triathlon (WT) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Elena Danilova for the use of the prohibited substance Trimetazidine in June 2014, August 2014 and in June 2015.

Thereupon in June 2021 the Athlete's case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure. On 17 January 2022 the CAS ADD Sole Arbitrator decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligiblity on the Athlete.

Hereafter in February 2022 the Athlete appealed the CAS ADD Decision with the CAS Appeal Division. The Athlete requested the Appeal Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose no sanction or alternatively a reduced sanction.

The Athlete denied any use of prohibited substances and argued that she underwent 72 doping tests without issues. Further she disputed the CAS ADD Sole Arbitrator and the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by WADA, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov.

World Triathlon and WADA contended that the Athlete's 3 official samples contained a prohibited substance and that the Moscow Laboratory falsely reported these samples as negative in ADAMS in 2014 and 2015. This would prove that the Athlete was a protected athlete as part of the Russian Doping Scheme.

The Panel assessed and addressed the Parties' evidence and arguments and determines that:

  • The Athlete did not challenge the appointment of the CAS Panel within the seven day time period.
  • Non of the procedural complaints contended for by the Athlete is sustained.
  • The Moscow Laboratory did deploy a disappearance positive methodology as part of an institutional conspiracy to cheat.
  • The Athlete used a prohibited substance on 28 June 2014, 7 August 2014 and 6 June 2015.
  • World Triathlon and WADA have met their burden in proving the alleged anti-doping rule violation.
  • The Appealed Decision is confirmed and, correcting a clerical error, the sanction shall start on 7 May 2021.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 August 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Elena Danilova on 7 February 2022 against the Arbitral Award rendered by the CAS Anti-Doping Division on 17 January 2022 in the matter CAS 2021/ADD/23 is partially granted.

2.) The Arbitral Award rendered by the CAS Anti-Doping Division on 17 January 2022 in the matter CAS 2021/ADD/23 is confirmed, save that the period of ineligibility shall start from 7 May 2021.

3.) (…).

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

6.) All other or further requests for relief are hereby dismissed.

CAS 2021_A_8529 WADA vs IBA & Rohan Polanco Emiliano

16 May 2023

CAS 2021/A/8529 WADA v. International Boxing Association & Rohan Polanco Emiliano

In July 2021 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the International Boxing Association (IBA), reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American boxer Rohan Polanco Emiliano. The ITA deemed that the Athlete had 3 Wherabouts Failures within a 12 month period:

  • a Filing Failure on 6 October 2020;
  • a Missed Test and Filing Failure on 2 December 2020;
  • a Filing Failure on 14 April 2022.

Although the Athlete submitted his explanations to the AIU the Whereabouts Failures were recorded. Also the Athlete's request for an adminstrative review regarding the 2nd and 3rd Whereabouts Failure were dismissed in June 2021.

However on 19 November 2021 an IBA Decision deemed that there was no anti-doping rule violation because the 1st Whereabouts Failure should not have been recorded. The ITA established that due to IT specificity of ADAMS' system the Athlete's Whereabouts Filings was not properly processed.

Hereafter the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the IBA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to sanction the Athlete for his 3 Whereabouts Failures.

WADA contended that prior the Athlete was duly notified about his RTP obligations and failed to make whereabouts filings by the applicable deadline. Furthermore the Athlete acted negligenty in his failure to meet his filing requirements.

The IBA confirmed the Athlete's 2nd and 3rd Filing Failures. However the IBA questioned the 1st Filing Failere as to whether the rules had been complied with by the Athlete in all the circumstances.

The Athlete’s asserted in his submissions that:

  • he does not read, write or understand English;
  • he may have received but never read and never understood the various correspondences sent to him by the IBA in relation to his whereabouts obligations;
  • while he accepts that it is his signature on the “Acknowledgement Form” appended to the RTP Letter, he does not remember signing and he did not and does not understand what it says because it is in English and no one has explained it to him; and
  • the emails sent from his email account (in English) were not sent by him but by an FDB administrator.

The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence and the Parties' arguments and determines that:

  • The Athlete was duly notified about his RTP obligations.
  • He did not provide all of the required information before the set deadline of 30 September 2020 regarding his 1st Filing Failure.
  • WADA properly established that the Athlete's 2nd and 3rd filing failures have been made out.
  • The Athlete had 3 Filing Failures within a 12 month period and accordingly he committed an anti-doping rule violation.
  • The Athlete acted with a higher degree of negligence.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 May 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 27 December 2021 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against International Boxing Agency Association and Mr Rohan Polanco Emiliano with respect to the decision rendered by the International Boxing Agency Association on 19 November 2021 is upheld.

2.) The decision of the International Boxing Association (comprised of an operative decision dated 14 July 2021 and a reasoned decision dated 19 November 2021), through its mandated agent the International Testing Agency, is set aside.

3.) Mr Rohan Polanco Emiliano is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.4 of the IBA ADR 2020 and/or the IBA ADR 2021.

4.) Mr Rohan Polanco Emiliano is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of twenty (20) months from the date of this Award. Any period of provisional suspension effectively served before the entry into force of this Award shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.

5.) All competitive results obtained by Mr Rohan Polanco Emiliano from and including 1 April 2021 until 11 July 2021 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes).

6.) The present award is rendered without costs, except for the Court Office fee, which WADA has already paid and is retained by the CAS.

7.) (…).

8.) (…).

9.) All other or further requests for relief are hereby dismissed.

CAS 2021_A_8264 RUSADA vs Denis Ogarkov | WADA vs RUSADA & Dennis Ogarkov

13 Jul 2023
  • CAS 2021/A/8264 Russian Anti-Doping Agency v. Denis Ogarkov;
  • CAS 2021/A/8382 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency & Dennis Ogarkov

In May 2020 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Dennis Ogarkov after reanalysis of his 2015 sample revealed the presence of the prohibited substance Oral Turinabol (Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone).

However on 27 May 2021 the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) ruled that the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation. The DADC deemed that RUSADA has not fulfilled the condition regarding the burden of proof.

Hereafter in August 2021 RUSADA and in October 2021 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the DADC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Both Parties requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 4 years on the Athlete.

WADA and RUSADA contended that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The fact that the Limit of Detection (LoD) in question was not provided to the DADC was irrelevant.

They deemed that the Athlete acted intentionally and failed to demonstrate how the substance had entered his system, nor the source of the positive test.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and alleged that a product he had used had caused the positive test result. He requested for a reduced sanction and argued that prior and after October 2015 he was also tested without issues.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence in this case and determines that:

  • The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample.
  • He committed an anti-doping rule violation.
  • He failed to establish that the violation was not intentional.
  • He failed to demonstrate how the substance had entered his system.
  • Fairness requires that the Athlete's results shall be disqualified for a period of 4 years.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 July 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 26 August 2021 by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 125/2021 rendered on 27 May 2021 (CAS 2021/A/8264 Russian Anti-Doping Agency v. Denis Ogarkov) is upheld.

2.) The appeal filed on 4 October 2021 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 125/2021 rendered on 27 May 2021 (CAS 2021/A/8382 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency & Denis Ogarkov) is upheld.

3.) The decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 125/2021 rendered on 27 May 2021 is set aside.

4.) Denis Ogarkov is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the All-Russian Anti-Doping Rules of 2015.

5.) A period of four (4) years ineligibility is imposed on Denis Ogarkov, starting on the date of the present Award. The period of provisional suspension served by Denis Ogarkov between 21 May 2020 and 27 May 2021 shall be credited against the period of ineligibility imposed.

6.) All competitive results achieved by Denis Ogarkov from 21 October 2015 through to and including 20 October 2019 are disqualified, with all of the resulting consequences including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

7.) (…).

8.) (…).

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

CAS 2021_A_8263 RUSADA vs Abdusalam Gadisov | WADA vs RUSADA & Abdusalam Gadisov

13 Jul 2023
  • CAS 2021/A/8263 Russian Anti-Doping Agency v. Abdusalam Gadisov;
  • CAS 2021/A/8381 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency & Abdusalam Gadisov

In June 2020 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the wrestler Abdusalam Gadisov after reanalysis of his 2015 sample revealed the presence of the prohibited substance Oral Turinabol (Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone).

However on 27 May 2021 the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) ruled that the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation. The DADC deemed that RUSADA has not fulfilled the condition regarding the burden of proof.

Hereafter in August 2021 RUSADA and in October 2021 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the DADC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Both Parties requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 4 years on the Athlete.

WADA and RUSADA contended that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The fact that the Limit of Detection (LoD) in question was not provided to the DADC was irrelevant.

They deemed that the Athlete acted intentionally and failed to demonstrate how the substance had entered his system. Moreover the Athlete was a protected athlete under the Russian doping scheme.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and suggested with his expert witness that a contaminated supplement had caused the positive test result. He requested for a reduced sanction and argued that prior and after August 2015 he was also tested without issues.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence in this case and determines that:

  • Preliminary procedural matters raised by the Athlete are explained, dismissed or cured in the de novo CAS hearing.
  • There were no substantial delays in this case.
  • The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample.
  • He committed an anti-doping rule violation.
  • He failed to demonstrate how the substance had entered his system.
  • Fairness requires that the Athlete's results shall be disqualified for a period of 4 years.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 July 2023 that:

1.) The Appeal filed on 26 August 2021 by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 124/2021 rendered on 27 May 2021 (CAS 2021/A/8263 Russian Anti-Doping Agency v. Abdusalam Gadisov) is upheld.

2.) The Appeal filed on 4 October 2021 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 124/2021 rendered on 27 May 2021 (CAS 2021/A/8381 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency & Abdusalam Gadisov) is upheld.

3.) The decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 124/2021 rendered on 27 May 2021 is set aside.

4.) Abdusalam Gadisov is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the All-Russian Anti-Doping Rules of June 18, 2015.

5.) A period of four (4) years ineligibility is imposed on Abdusalam Gadisov, starting on the date of the present Award. The period of provisional suspension served by Abdusalam Gadisov between 19 May 2020 and 27 May 2021 shall be credited against the period of ineligibility imposed.

6.) All competitive results of Abdusalam Gadisov from 6 August 2015 until 5 August 2019 are disqualified, with all the resulting consequences (including forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, profits, prizes, and appearance money).

7.) (…).

8.) (…).

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

CAS 2021_A_8262 RUSADA vs Yuriy Selikhov | WADA vs RUSADA & Yuriy Selikhov

13 Jul 2023
  • CAS 2021/A/8262 Russian Anti-Doping Agency v. Yuriy Selikhov
  • CAS 2021/A/8380 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency & Yuriy Selikhov

In June 2020 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the bobsleigh Athlete Yuriy Selikhov after reanalysis of his 2013 sample revealed the presence of the prohibited substance Oral Turinabol (Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone).

However on 27 May 2021 the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) ruled that the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation. The DADC deemed that RUSADA has not fulfilled the condition regarding the burden of proof.

Hereafter in August 2021 RUSADA and in October 2021 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the DADC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Both Parties requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 4 years on the Athlete.

WADA and RUSADA contended that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The fact that the Limit of Detection (LoD) in question was not provided to the DADC was irrelevant.

They deemed that the Athlete acted intentionally and failed to demonstrate how the substance had entered his system. Moreover there are aggravating circumstances because the Athlete was a protected athlete under the Russian doping scheme.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence in this case and determines that:

  • The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample.
  • He committed an anti-doping rule violation.
  • He failed to demonstrate how the substance had entered his system.
  • The McLaren Reports revealed that the Athlete was a participant in the washout testing program and that he had used multiple prohibited substances.
  • There are aggravating circumstances present for the imposition of a more severe sanction.
  • Fairness requires that the Athlete's results shall be disqualified for a period of 3 years.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 July 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 26 August 2021 by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 123/2021 rendered on 27 May 2021 (CAS 2021/A/8262 Russian Anti-Doping Agency v. Yuriy Selikhov) is upheld.

2.) The appeal filed on 4 October 2021 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 123/2021 rendered on 27 May 2021 (CAS 2021/A/8380 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency & Yuriy Selikhov) is upheld.

3.) The decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 123/2021 rendered on 27 May 2021 is set aside.

4.) Yuriy Selikhov is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the All-Russian Anti-Doping Rules of April 13, 2011.

5.) A period of three (3) years ineligibility is imposed on Yuriy Selikhov, starting on the date of this Award. The period of provisional suspension served by Yuriy Selikhov between 8 June 2020 and 27 May 2021 shall be credited against the period of ineligibility imposed.

6.) All competitive results achieved by Yuriy Selikhov from 15 October 2013 through to and including 14 October 2016 shall be disqualified, with all of the resulting consequences including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

7.) (…).

8.) (…).

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

CAS 2021_A_8197 IWF vs Natasha Rosa Figueiredo | WADA vs IWF & Natasha Rosa Figueiredo

9 Nov 2023
  • CAS 2021/A/8197 International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Natasha Rosa Figueiredo
  • CAS 2021/A/8270 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) & Natasha Rosa Figueiredo

In May 2021 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazilian weightlifter Natasha Rosa Figueiredo after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide.

Thereupon on 22 July 2021 the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) Tribunal decided to impose a 1 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Tribunal deemed that this case was one of contaminated supplements and that the Athlete acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Hereafter both IWF and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the CAS ADD Decision with the CAS Appeal Division. They requested the Sole Arbitrator to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Both Parties accepted that the admitted violation was not intentional. Yet, they contended that the Athlete acted negligently with her supplements and that there are no grounds for a further reduced sanction.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence and the Parties' arguments in this case and determines that:

  • The Atlete admitted the violation and accepted the test results.
  • She demonstrated with evidence that she had purchase and used the supplement in question.
  • She failed to mention the use of this supplement on the Doping Control Form.
  • She established with corroborating evidence that the supplement contained prohibited contaminants.
  • The Athlete could have done more to ensure that the supplement was safe before administering it.
  • There are grounds for a reduced sanction because of No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 9 November 2023 that:

1.) The appeals filed on 12 and 26 August 2021 respectively by the International Weightlifting Federation and the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision issued on 22 July 2021 by the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport are partially upheld.

2.) The decision issued on 22 July 2021 by the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport is set aside.

3.) Ms Natasha Rosa Figueiredo committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation pursuant to Article 2.1 of the International Weightlifting Federation Anti-Doping Rules.

4.) Ms Natasha Rosa Figueiredo is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 16 (sixteen) months, commencing on the date of the present arbitral Award. The provisional suspension imposed on Ms Natasha Rosa Figueiredo from 7 May 2021 until 1 July 2021 shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility.

5.) All competitive results of Ms Natasha Figueiredo from 1 July 2021 until the date of the present Award shall not be disqualified. The results of Ms Figueiredo between 31 March 2021 and 7 May 2021 are not disqualified, with the exception of the results obtained during the 2020 Pan-American Championships in Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic), which are disqualified with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

6.) (…).

7.) (…).

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

CAS 2021_A_8126 RUSADA vs Rodion Bochkov | WADA vs RUSADA & Rodion Bochkov

28 Nov 2023
  • CAS 2021/A/8126 Russian Anti-Doping Agency v. Rodion Bochkov
  • CAS 2021/A/8152 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency & Rodion Bochkov

In May 2020 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Rodion Bochkow after reanalysis of his 2015 sample revealed the presence of the prohibited substance Oral Turinabol (Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone).

However on 27 May 2021 the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) ruled that the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation. The DADC deemed that RUSADA has not fulfilled the condition regarding the burden of proof.

Hereafter in July 2021 RUSADA and in August 2021 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the DADC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Both Parties requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 4 years on the Athlete.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He argued that contaminated meat or contaminated supplements likely have caused the positive test.

WADA and RUSADA contended that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The fact that the Limit of Detection (LoD) in question was not provided to the DADC was irrelevant.

They deemed that the Athlete acted intentionally and that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction. Further he failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that contaminated meat or contaminated supplements were the source of the positive test.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence in this case and determines that:

  • Following the presence of a prohibited substance in his sample the Athlete had admitted an anti-doping rule violation.
  • The Athlete failed to demonstrate that contaminated meat or contaminated supplements were the source of the prohibited substance in his sample.
  • The Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 28 November 2023 that:

1.) The appeals filed by Russian Anti-Doping Agency and World Anti-Doping Agency against the Decision No. 99/21 rendered by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of Russian Anti-Doping Agency “RUSADA” on 27 May 2021 are partially upheld.

2.) The Decision No. 99/21 rendered by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of Russian Anti-Doping Agency “RUSADA” on 27 May 2021 is set aside.

3.) Mr. Rodion Bochkov is found to have committed a violation of Article 2.1 of the All-Russian Anti-Doping Rules.

4.) Mr. Rodion Bochkov is imposed a period of Ineligibility of four (4) years. The period of Ineligibility shall commence on the date of this decision, with credit being applied in respect of the provisional suspension already served by Mr. Bochkov.

5.) All competitive results obtained by Rodion Rochkov from and including 17 September 2015 to 18 May 2020 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes).

6.) (…).

7.) (…).

8.) All other and further claims or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2016_A_4694 Daniel Jonás Gurtner Morales vs Agencia Nacional Antidopaje de Guatemala & Asociación de Golf de Guatemala

18 Apr 2017

CAS 2016_A_4694 Daniel Jonás Gurtner Morales vs Agencia Nacional Antidopaje de Guatemala & Asociación de Golf de Guatemala

On 9 June 2016 the National Anti-Doping Agency Guatemala (ANADO-GUA) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the golf player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Clostebol.

Hereafter in June 2016 appealed the ANADO-GUA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to annul the Appealed Decision.

The Athlete argued that during the preliminary proceedings and during the Doping Control there had been several failures:

  • Delay in the procedure regarding the preliminary hearing;
  • Partiality of the ANADO-GUA Panel in first instance;
  • The Doping Control Officer was not authorised;
  • No proper notification about the sample collection;
  • No communication that he could be accompanied by a representative;
  • Significant departures of the ISTI during sample collection and chain of custody.

The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence and the Parties' arguments and determines that:

  • There had been various procedural failures in first instance;
  • The ANADO-GUA Panel acted impartial;
  • There had been several proven departures of the ISTI and the Athlete's privacy during Doping Control;
  • There is uncertainty of the location and custordy of the samples for 10 days;
  • The established departures of the ISTI possibly could have caused the adverse analytical finding.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 18 April 2017 that:

  • The Athlete's appeal is admissible;
  • The Appealed Decision is set aside;
  • The impose sanction of 2 years is annulled.

World Athletics 2024 WA vs Thiago Braz Da Silva

20 May 2024

In July 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Brazillian Athlete Thiago Braz Da Silva after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Ostarine in a low concentration.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He argued that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence and requested for a reduced sanction.

He assumed that a contaminated supplement had caused the positive test results. He had used his supplements in question since September 2022 and these products were provided by his sports nutritionist and a compound pharmacy.

The Athlete's Scienza Farma supplements were tested in three laboratories, including the Cologne Laboratory. Analysis revealed the presence of Ostarine contaminants in 3 supplements he had used. 

The Athlete was assured that these supplements did not contain banned substances. Moreover his team took substantial precautionary measures to avoid the risk of contamination.

The AIU contended that there was insufficient evidence of supplement contamination and that the Athlete failed to demonstrate the origin of the prohibited substance in his samples. The AIU deems that the actions of the Athlete and his team in relation to compound pharmacies was not sufficient to show that he did not manifestly diesregard the risk.

The Panel assessed and addressed the evidence of the Parties and their expert witnesses and determines that:

  • The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly he committed an anti-doping rule violation.
  • The Ostarine detected in the Athlete's samples originates from the Scienza Farma contaminated supplements.
  • The Athlete has proven on a balance of probabilities the source of the positive tests.
  • The Athlete has established that the violation was not intentional and that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.
  • Nevertheless he should have been more cautious in his trust of his medical team, requested more specific information and documents, and should have made reasonable searches himself.

Therefore the Panel by majority decides on 20 May 2024 to impose a 16 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 28 July 2023.

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