CAS 2020/0/6761 World Athletics v. Russian Athletics Federation & Andrey Silnov

Related case:

World Athletics 2022 WA vs Andrey Silnov
January 18, 2023

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.

These investigation reports revealed that the prohibited substances Formestane, Metenolone and Methasterone had been established in the 2 samples of the Athlete Andrey Silnov. provided in 2013.

Consequently in May 2019 World Athletics reported anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for the use of these prohibited substances. In February 2020 the World Athletics referred the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that two unofficial samples were listed in the Moscow Washout Schedules as belonging to the Athlete, which would date from 8 and 18 July 2013. This would prove that the Athlete was part of a doping programme.

In this regard, in accordance with the information contained in these schedules, in the leadup to the 2013 Moscow World Championships, the Athlete would have been using up to three prohibited substances: Methasterone, Methenolone and Formestane.

The Athlete denied that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation and argued that the appeal should be dismissed. Further he disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by WADA, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov.

Despite being duly invited to do so, RusAF did not file any submission.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence provided by the Parties and determines that:

• The Athlete used prohibited substances within the Washout Testing Programme as part of a doping plan or scheme.
• The Moscow Washout Schedules are reliable with respect to the Athlete's entries, from which it can be inferred that the Athlete had used the prohibited substances Methasterone, Methenolone and Formestane between 8 July 2013 and 18 July 2013.
• There are several aggravating circumstances in this case that justify the imposition of the maximum sanction allowed.
• The retroactive disqualification of the Athlete's competitive results is fair end necessary to restore the integrity of all the sporting competitions and to protect the interest of the sport and of the rest of athletes.

Therefore the The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 April 2021 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics against the Russian Athletics Federation and Andrey Silnov is upheld.

2.) Andrey Silnov is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 32.2(b) of the IAAF Competition Rules 2012-2013.

3.) Andrey Silnov is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years stmiing from the date of this award.

4.) All competitive results achieved by Andrey Silnov from 8 July 2013 through the commencement of the period of ineligibility are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The cost of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the Russian Athletics Federation.

6.) Each party shall bear its own costs and other expenses incmTed in connection with this arbitration.

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

CAS 2020/0/6760 World Athletics v. Russian Athletics Federation & Oksana Kondratyeva


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.

These investigation reports revealed that the prohibited substances 4-Hydroxytestosterone, Boldenone and Oxabolone had been established in the 3 samples of the Athlete Oksana Kondratyeva provided in 2013.

Consequently in May 2019 World Athletics reported anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for the use of these prohibited substances. In February 2020 the World Athletics referred the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that 3 unofficial samples were listed in the Moscow Washout Schedules as belonging to the Athlete, which would date from 2, 18 and 25 July 2013. This would prove that the Athlete was part of a doping programme.

In this regard, in accordance with the information contained in these schedules, in the leadup to the 2013 Moscow World Championships, the Athlete would have been using up to 3 prohibited substances: 4-Hydroxytestosterone, Boldenone and Oxabolone.

Despite being duly invited to do so, RusAF did not file any submission. Also the Athlete did not engage in this procedure, nor filed any submission or provided any form of defence whatsoever in this arbitration.

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

• The Athlete used prohibited substances within the Washout Testing Programme as part of a doping plan or scheme in the summer of 2013.
• The Moscow Washout Schedules showed that the Athlete had used the prohibited substances 4-Hydroxytestosterone, Boldenone and Oxabolone between 2 and 18 July 2013.
• There are several aggravating circumstances in this case that justify the imposition of the maximum sanction allowed.
• The retroactive disqualification of the Athlete's competitive results is fair end necessary to restore the integrity of all the sporting competitions and to protect the interest of the sport and of the rest of athletes.

Therefore the The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 April 2021 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics against the Russian Athletics Federation and Oksana Kondratyeva is upheld.

2.) Oksana Kondratyeva is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 32.2 (b) of the IAAF Competition Rules 2012-2013.

3.) Oksana Kondratyeva is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting from the date of this award.

4.) All competitive results achieved by Oksana Kondratyeva from 2 July 2013 through the commencement of the period of ineligibility are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The cost of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the Russian Athletics Federation.

6.) Each party shall bear its own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.

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

CAS 2020/O/6759 World Athletics v. Russian Athletic Federation & Natalya Antyukh

Related case:

CAS 2021_A_8012 Natalya Antyukh vs World Athletics
June 13, 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.

These investigation reports revealed that the prohibited substances 1-Testosterone, Boldenone, Desoxymethyltestosterone, Methasterone, Oxabolone and  Prasterone (DHEA) had been established in the 4 samples of the Athlete Natalya Antyuk provided in 2013.

Consequently in May 2019 World Athletics reported anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for the use of these prohibited substances. In February 2020 the World Athletics referred the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that 6 unofficial samples were listed in the Moscow Washout Schedules as belonging to the Athlete, which would date from 30 June 2013, 6 July 2013, 14 July 2013 and 25 July 2013. This would prove that the Athlete was part of a doping programme.

In this regard, in accordance with the information contained in these schedules, in the leadup to the 2013 Moscow World Championships, the Athlete would have been using up to 6 prohibited substances: 1-Testosterone, Boldenone, Desoxymethyltestosterone, Methasterone, Oxabolone and  Prasterone (DHEA).

The Athlete denied that she had committed an anti-doping rule violation and argued that the appeal should be dismissed. Further she disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by WADA, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov.

Despite being duly invited to do so, RusAF did not file any submission.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence provided by the Parties and determines that:

• The Athlete used prohibited substances within the Washout Testing Programme as part of a doping plan or scheme.
• The Moscow Washout Schedules are reliable with respect to the Athlete's entries, from which it can be inferred that the Athlete had used the prohibited substances 1-Testosterone, Boldenone, Desoxymethyltestosterone, Methasterone, Oxabolone and  Prasterone (DHEA) between 30 June 2013 and 25 July 2013.
• There are several aggravating circumstances in this case that justify the imposition of the maximum sanction allowed.
• The retroactive disqualification of the Athlete's competitive results is fair end necessary to restore the integrity of all the sporting competitions and to protect the interest of the sport and of the rest of athletes.

Therefore the The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 April 2021 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics against the Russian Athletics Federation and Natalya Antyukh is upheld.

2.) Natalya Antyukh is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 32.2(b) of the IAAF Competition Rules 2012-2013.

3.) Natalya Antyukh is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting from the date of this award.

4.) All competitive results achieved by Natalya Antyukh from 30 June 2013 through the commencement of the period of ineligibility are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The cost of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the Russian Athletics Federation.

6.) Each party shall bear its own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.

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

iNADO Update (2023) 5 (9 May)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)

Contents:

Building a Supportive Community

• Thank you: Fundraising for NADO Ukraine
• iNADO 2023 Workshop Summary

Improving Practice Everywhere

• iNADO Member-only Webinar: Education and mental health support for athletes returning from a sanction: Experiences from USADA
• Summary of iNADO Webinar: Inadvertent doping & contamination cases
• iNADO's Hot-Topics
• Educational Laboratory Webinars
• CCES Symposium: Competition Manipulation and Gambling in Sport

Guiding Principles

• Anti-Doping Norway's 20-Year Anniversary: Guiding Principles for the Future of Anti-Doping

Monthly Features

• Measuring the use of PEDs through wastewater analysis
• WADA TUE Symposium

iNADO Sponsors and Partners

• New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

In November 2022 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Édouard Wanadi after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance GW501516.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. After a Notice of Charge in December 2022 the Athlete requested in January 2023 for a hearing and challenged the violation and the proposed sanction.

Ultimately in April 2023 the Athlete chose to admit the violation, to waive his right for a hearing and to accept the sanction proposed by CCES.

Therefore CCES decides on 10 May 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 November 2022.

In July 2022 the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) has reported and anti-doping rule violation against the Swiss Athlete Felix Vogg after his sample tested positive for a specified stimulant. Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the FEI Tribunal.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He explained with medical documents that he suffered from a condition and used prescribed medication containing the specified stimulant.

The Athlete asserted that he was tested before without issues while he had a valid TUE for the use of this medication. However at the material time he was unaware that his TUE had expired.

Thereupon in August 2022 the Athlete made an application for a prospective and retroactive TUE. In September 2022 his application for a prospective TUE was granted, yet his application for a retroactive TUE was denied.

The Sole Arbitrator 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 Arbitrator deems that the Athlete had demonstrated the source of the prohibited substance and that he acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. Furthermore the Arbitrator consideres that he had mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form and since September 2022 had valid prospective TUE.

Therefore on 20 December 2022 the FEI Tribunal decides to impose a 2 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the decision. Also the Athlete is fined, he must pay his part of the costs of the proceedings and his results are disqualified from the date of the sample collection, i.e. 1 July 2022 until 11 September 2022.

In February 2023 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Esther Macharia after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Testosterone and its Adiols.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. In her submissions the Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance. She admitted, without corroborating evidence, that a friend had administered Sustanon (containing Testosterone) as treatment for her joint pain.

Hereafter the Athlete failed to respond to the AIU communications. Ultimately in April 2023 she also failed to sign and submit the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form within the given deadline.

The AIU finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the AIU deems that she failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.

Therefore the AIU decides on 3 May 2023 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 21 February 2023.

In July 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Botswanan Athlete Nijel Amos after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance GW1516 .

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete alleged that the supplement he had used was the source of the positive test. However analysis of this supplement in February 2023 revealed no banned substances.

Ultimately in April 2023 the Athlete gave a timely admission, waived his right for a hearing and accepted the sanction proposed by the AIU.

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

Therefore the AIU decides on 20 April 2023 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 July 2022.

CAS 2017/A/5477 Aaron Sloan v. Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) & Baseball Australia (BA)

In April 2017 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the baseball player Aaron Sloan after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance D-Methamfetamine.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and ASADA proposed a sanction of 4 years. However the Athlete failed to repond within the set deadline. On 30 November 2017 he was deemed to have admitted the violation, to have waived his right for a hearing and to have accepted the sanction of 4 years proposed by ASADA.

Hereafter in December 2017 the Athlete appealed the Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). He requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete admitted the recreational use of D-Methamfetamine and explained that the night before the competition he had consumed alcohol with friends and used the substance. He asserted that the use occurred out-of-competition and not within the relevant 12 hours before the competition the next day.

ASADA and Baseball Australia contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the use of D-Methamfetamine was not intentional, nor that it was used in a context unrelated sport performance. With expert evidence they challenged the Athlete's assertion that he had not used the substance within the relevant 12 hours prior to the competition.

Following assessment of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator concludes the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional. He could not demonstrate that the D-Methamfetamine was used out-of-competition nor in a context unrelated to sport performance.

Furthermore the Sole Arbitrator is satisfied that the Athlete has not discharged his onus of proving that he did not know there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and that he did not manifestly disregard that risk.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 12 October 2017 that:

1.) The Appeal filed by Mr Aaron Sloan on 21 December 2017 against the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and Baseball Australia concerning the decision of Baseball Australia rendered on 30 November 2017 is dismissed.

2.) The decision of Baseball Australia dated 30 November 2017 to impose a sanction of four years ineligibility upon Mr Aaron Sloan commencing on 26 April 2017 is confirmed.

(…)

5.) All further requests for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2017_A_5175 IAAF vs ADAK, Athletics Kenya & Benjamin Ngandu Ndegwa - Final Award

Related case:

CAS 2017_A_5175 IAAF vs ADAK, Athletics Kenya & Benjamin Ngandu Ndegwa - Partial Award
November 17, 2017

In July 2015 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Benjamin Ngandu Ndegwa after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone).

On 13 April 2017 the Kenyan Sports Disputes Tribunal decided to impose a reduced 20 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 July 2015.

Hereafter in June 2017 the IAAF appealed the Kenyan decision of 13 April 2013 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The IAAF requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. He explained with evidence that he underwent medical treatment in a hospital in Kenya for his chronic conditions and had received prescribed medication including Sustanon containing Testosterone.

The IAAF contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system. The IAAF had established that the Athlete had not received medical treatment in the hospital in Kenya, whereas the medical documents he had produced were falsifications.

Furthermore the alleged use of Sustanon containing Testosterone could not explain the presence of Nandrolone in his samples. Also the IAAF had determinded that the Athlete repeatedly had breached the accepted provisional suspension between february 2016 and February 2017.

In view of the evidence the Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Panel determines that some medical records of a physician and hospital in Kenya appeared to have been falsified.

The Panel is comfortably satisfied that the IAAF had met its burden of proof in establishing and anti-doping rule violation and that the Athlete failed to demonstrate lack of intention or provided any defence. Finally the Panel considers that, despite the accepted provisional suspension, the Athlete had participated in at least nine high level events.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 17 November 2017 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the International Association of Athletics Federations on 2 June 2017 is upheld.

2.) The Decision rendered by the Sports Dispute Tribunal of the Republic of Kenya on 13 April 2017 is set aside.

3.) Mr. Benjamin Ngandu Ndegwa is sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting on the date of the Partial Award.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Mr. Benjamin Ngandu Ndegwa from and including 6 June 2015 to the date of the Partial Award are disqualified with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

5.) The costs of the arbitration and the Parties’ legal and other costs incurred in connection with the present proceedings shall be determined in a further Award.