CAS AD 16/07 International Olympic Committee v. lzzat Artykov

Related case:
CAS 2016_A_4777 Izzat Artykov vs IOC
April, 21, 2017

Mr. Izzat Artykov is a Kyrgyz Athlete competing in the Men’s 69 kg Weightlifting event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 12 August 2016 the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance strychnine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Non of the parties requested for a hearing and the Athlete did not file a statement in his defence.

The CAS Panel finds that the IOC met its burden of proof under Art. 3.1 IOC ADR. The documents adduced by the IOC establish sufficient proof, to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel, that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation under Art. 2 IOC ADR.

Therefore the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel decides on 18 August 2016:

1.) The Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Olympic Games Rio 2016.
2.) All results obtained by the Athlete in the Olympic Games Rio 2016 are disqualified with all consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes.
3.) The Athlete is excluded from the Olympic Games Rio 2016.
4.) The Athlete's Accreditation (number 1087397) is withdrawn.
5.) The responsibility for the Athlete's results management in terms of sanction beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is referred to the International Weightlifting Federation being the applicable International Federation.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/006 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Kleber Da Silva Ramos

Related cases:

• CAS OG AD 20/03 IOC vs Kleber Da Silva Ramos
  August 18, 2016
• UCI-ADT 2017 UCI vs Kleber Da Silva Ramos
  January 8, 2018

Mr. Kleber Da Silva Ramos is a Brazilian Athlete competing in the road race cyling event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 7 August 2016 the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA). The IOC opened proceedings CAS OG AD 16/03 against the Athlete with the CAS Anti-Doping Division.

On 11 August 2016 the IOC has reported a second anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA).

Because of the first reported anti-doping rule violation the Athlete was already provisional suspended and also the proceedings in this second case CAS OG AD 16/06 against the Athlete was suspended pending the final award of the Panel in CAS OG AD 16/03.

On 18 August 2016 the CAS Anti-Doping Panel decided in CAS OG AD 16/03 that:

• the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• he was declared ineligible to compete in all competitions in which he had not yet participated at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games;
• he was excluded from the Rio Games;
• his accreditation (number 1210046) was withdrawn; and
• the matter, as to consequences associated therewith, was referred to the UCI accordingly.

After publication of the Award in CAS OG AD 16/03 the Panel resumed the suspended proceedings in CAS OG AD 16/06.

Also in this case the Athlete accepted the test results, waived his right to be heard for the CAS Panel and didn’t file a statement in his defence.

Considering the test results in this case the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel decides on 20 August 2016:

1.) The Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

2.) The responsibility for the Athlete's results management in terms of sanction beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is referred to the UCI being the applicable International Federation.

3.) All remaining requests for relief are denied as moot.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/005 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Xinyi Chen

Related case:

FINA 2016 FINA vs Xinyi Chen
December 7, 2016

• Aquatics (swimming)
• Doping (hydrochlorothiazide)
• Duty of the athlete
• Alternative explanation
• Literal application of the WADA Technical Documents

1. Being a young, honest person and developing outstanding performance results using exclusively fair and accepted training methods neither eliminate nor diminish the athlete’s duty under the IOC Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his/her body, and in case of an Adverse Analytical Finding, his/her duty to explain the source of the prohibited substance.

2. A mere assumption or speculation without any corroborating evidence does not meet the requirement of a consistent alternative explanation for the ingestion of a prohibited substance in order for a CAS panel to feel satisfied “that one of them is more likely than not having occurred”. In particular, contamination in drinking water or meat or other nutrition would most presumably lead to more than just one athlete being found with a prohibited substance in his/her body.

3. Technical Documents being part of the International Standard for Laboratories should be applied literally by laboratories.

Ms Xinyi Chen is a Chinese Athlete competing in the Women’s 100m butterly and the Women’s Freestyle event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 10 August the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ).
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the CAS Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete asserted, sustained by expert witnesses, that a serious lack of care on the laboratory side, which was suspended by WADA already twice prior to Rio 2016, has been shown. In close, the Athlete reiterated her position, on a balance of probability, that she did not commit an ADRV noting the following:
1.) in the short time available, she tested and analysed all medication and vitamins to determine the source of the prohibited substance;
2.) she has a clean anti-doping record from numerous tests in the past;
3.) she underwent a forensic report with an expert of the Public Prosecutor Office, which confirmed and underlined her honesty; and
4.) the numerous mistakes committed by the Rio laboratory in the present case. Therefore, the Athlete should not be disqualified from the 100 m butterfly finals.

The Panel notes that the Athlete undertook enormous efforts in order to find the source for the prohibited substance in her body. None of these tested substances, however, led to any finding with respect of the source of HCTZ.

The Panel finds that as a matter of fact, no evidence on a balance of probability as required by art. 3.1 IOC ADR could be adduced by the Athlete to rebut the laboratory's analysis' result on the A and the B Sample: the presence of the prohibited substance of HCTZ in the Athlete's sample. In the opinion of the Panel there was no departure from the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL).

The Panel concludes that the IOC met the burden of proof under Art. 3.1 IOC ADR. The documents adduced by the IOC establish sufficient proof, to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel, that the presence of the prohibited substance in the Athlete's body constitutes an ADRV under Art. 2 IOC ADR.

Therefore the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel decides on 18 August 2016:

1.) The IOC has established the presence of a prohibited substance in accordance with Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

2.) The result obtained by the Athlete in the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is disqualified in accordance with Article 9 of the IOC ADR, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

3.) In accordance with Art. 10.2.2 IOC ADR, the matter of the Athlete is referred to FINA to decide on the responsibility for result management in terms of sanctions beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/004 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Silvia Danekova

Ms. Sylvia Danekova is a Bulgarian Athlete competing in the Athletics events at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 8 August the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete waived her right to be heard and submitted a statement in her defence.

The CAS Panel finds that the substances mentioned in the Athlete’s letter do not fully correspond to the substances indicated by her on the Doping Control Form. The Athlete did not provide any evidence corroborating her statements in the letter, neither as to the origin of the Prohibited Substance found in her body, nor as to the argued lack of intent.

Considering the test results the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides on 12 August 2016:

1.) The Athlete is declared ineligible to compete in the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

2.) The Athlete is excluded from the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

3.) The Athlete’s Accreditation (number 1117181) is withdrawn.

4.) The responsibility for the Athlete’s results management in terms of sanction beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is referred to the International Association of Athletics Federations being the applicable International Federation.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/003 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Kleber Da Silva Ramos

Related cases:

• CAS OG AD 16/06 International Olympic Committee vs Kleber Da Silva Ramos
  August 20, 2016
• UCI-ADT 2017 UCI vs Kleber Da Silva Ramos
  January 8, 2018

Mr. Kleber Da Silva Ramos is a Brazilian Athlete competing in the road race cyling event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 7 August 2016 the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete accepted the test results, waived his right to be heard for the CAS Panel and didn’t file a statement in his defence.

Considering the test results the CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Art. 2 IOC ADR.

Therefore the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel decides on 12 August 2016:

1.) The Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

2.) All results obtained by the Athlete in the Olympic Games Rio 2016 are disqualified with all consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes.

3.) The Athlete is excluded from the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

4.) The Athlete's Accreditation (number 1210046) is withdrawn.

5.) The responsibility for the Athlete's results management in terms of sanction beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is referred to the UCI being the applicable International Federation.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/002 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Tomasz Zielinski

Related case:

CAS 2017_A_5178 Tomasz Zielinski vs IWF
March 15, 2018

• Weightlifting
  
• Doping (19-Norandrosterone)
  
• 19-Norandrosterone as threshold substance

19-Norandrosterone is a non-specified substance prohibited under S1.1b of the WADA Prohibited List which can also be produced endogenously. Therefore, it is a Threshold Substance for which the International Standard for Laboratories established special criteria for the evaluation of a Sample with particular regard to the decision limits (DL) that shall be applied to determine whether the result indicates an Adverse Analytical Finding.

Mr. Tomasz Zielinski is a Polish Athlete competing in the weightlifting event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

In August 2016 the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (nandrolone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete denied intentional use of prohibited substances and stated that he was frequently tested and requested dna analysis of the samples and a new anti-doping control. Both requests were dismissed by the Laboratory.

Considering the test results the CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Art. 2 IOC ADR.

Therefore the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel decides on 12 August 2016:
1.) The Athlete is declared ineligible to compete at the Olympic Games Rio 2016.
2.) The Athlete is excluded from the Olympic Games Rio 2016.
3.) The Athlete’s Accreditation (number 1051326) is withdrawn.
4.) The responsibility for the Athlete’s results management in terms of sanction beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is referred to the International Weightlifting Federation being the applicable International Federation.

CAS OG AD 16/01 Pavel Sozykin & RYF vs World Sailing & IOC

• Sailing
  
• Decision of an International Federation to reject the entry of an athlete for the Olympic Games
  
• Jurisdiction of the CAS anti-doping Division
  
• Transfer to the competent jurisdiction

1. It is a sine qua non of the jurisdiction of the CAS anti-doping Division (ADD) that an alleged anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) has been asserted and referred to it under the IOC anti-doping regulations (ADR). A decision that simply states conditions of eligibility to be satisfied by Russian athletes who wish to compete in Rio and is addressed to IFs and the ROC, not to CAS ADD, cannot be construed as such an assertion or reference. Furthermore, from Article 1 of the CAS ADD rules read as a coherent whole and in the context of the IOC ADR which apply only to doping controls “over which the IOC has jurisdiction in connection with the Olympic Games Rio 2016” and are part of the legal matrix of the CAS ADD Rules, it is clear that the alleged ADRV must have occurred “on the occasion of the OG”. A date of sample collection in October 2014 falls far outside the occasion or period of Rio 2016.

2. Even if principles of Swiss law, according to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, demand transfer by a (jurisdictionally) incompetent judge to a competent one, such principles are not shown to be applicable directly if at all to the two CAS Divisions at the Olympic Games, in a structure which is sui generis. While a specific rule exists for the transfer of an arbitration case from the CAS Ordinary Division to the CAS Appeals Division and vice-versa, it does not exist for the transfer of a case from the CAS ADD to the CAS ad hoc Division (AHD). Such silence in the CAS rules cannot be construed as a gap, given that the CAS AHD is clearly identified as the appeals body of the CAS ADD in the CAS ADD Rules. It is therefore for the applicant to redirect the application to the other CAS Division who can itself determine whether to accept it. The absence of an automatic transfer within the CAS Divisions does not affect the rights of any applicant to file the same application to both the CAS ADD and the CAS AHD, either simultaneously, to ensure that at least one of them would retain jurisdiction, or following an award denying jurisdiction by the first of the two Divisions, given that there is no particular time limit to refer a case to the CAS ADD and/or the CAS AHD during the Olympic Games.

On 18 July 2016, WADA's Independent Person, Mr. Richard McLaren, published on the WADA website its official independent report (the "McLaren Report") describing a fraudulent, government directed scheme to protect Russian athletes from ADRVs, including with respect to disqualification during the Sochi Winter Games.

The McLaren report had identified one Russian positive sailing test result said to be suppressed by the Moscow laboratory. WADA informed World Sailing that this pertained to Mr. Sozykin and came from a sample collected on 4 October 2014. The substance said to be detected was JWH 018, a cannibanoid.

On 24 July 2016 the IOC Executive Board issued a decision that no athlete implicated in the McLaren report would be permitted to compete in the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.
As a consequence of the findings in the McLaren Report and the IOC Decision of 24 July 2016 World Sailing decided that the entry of the Russian Athlete Pavel Sozykin was rejected for the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

Hereafter on 2 August 2016 the Athlete and the Russian Yachting Federation (RYF) appealed the decisions issued by the IOC and World Sailing with the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD). The Athlete and RYF requested the CAS ADD Panel to set aside the IOC and World Sailing decisions and to allow him to compete at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.
IOC and World Sailing requested the Panel to reject the appeal because the CAS Ad Hoc Division (CAS AHD) has jurisdiction and not CAS Anti-Doping Division.

The CAS ADD Panel rules on 14 August 2016 that CAS AHD has jurisdiction and not CAS ADD and declines to make any order for transfer of the Athlete’s appeal to CAS AHD.

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Rio) 16/025 World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) v. Narsingh Yadav & National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA)

• Wrestling
• Doping (metandienone)
• Time when the dispute arises
• Dispute “in connection with” the Olympic Games
• Type and weighing of evidence

1. When WADA is challenging with the ad hoc Division the decision of a national anti-doping organisation’s anti-doping body to exonerate an athlete from the charges of violating the anti-doping rules of the national anti-doping organisation, it is the day of that decision that triggers the time when the dispute arises. It is not the date of the out-of-competition testing that led to the decision or of the decision to provisionally suspend the athlete.

2. The decision to exonerate an athlete from the charges of violating the anti-doping rules of the national anti-doping organisation and to allow him or her to participate in the Olympic Games is clearly “in connection with” the Olympic Games.

3. A CAS panel can accept both circumstantial evidence and witness evidence and, indeed, other evidence, but it is for the panel to determine what weight to attach to all the evidence before it and the panel can only be guided by the evidence proffered by each party in support of its case.

Mr. Narsingh Yadav is an Indian Athlete qualified to compete the 74 kg Men's Free Style Wrestling event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 15 July 2016 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Metandienone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Indian Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ADDP). The Athlete's food and supplements were tested without result and he filed a complaint with the police alleging he has been the victim of sabotage.

The Athlete Narsingh Yadav had an ongoing issue with his wrestling competitor and rival Sushil Kumar. The Athlete asserted, sustained by witnesses, that Mr. Jithesh (a junior wrestler and member of Kumar's entourage) attempted in June 2016 to contaminate the food in the kitchen of his team.
Also in June 2016 Mr. Sushil Kumar's appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi against Mr. Yadav's selection for the Rio 2016 Olympic Games. Later in June 2016 the Athlete alleged that Mr. Jithesh had contaminated his energy drink.

Considering the circumstances in this case the Indian ADDP Panel convened 4 hearings before the Panel ruled that there is no fault or negligence on his part due to the Athlete being the victim of sabotage done by a competitor. Therefore the ADDP decided on 1 August 2016 for the acquittal of the Athlete.

Hereafter on 13 August 2016 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the ADDP decision of 1 August 2016 with the CAS Ad Hoc Division in Rio. After a provisional suspension was ordered the Athlete and INADA filed evidence with affidavits in their defence.

WADA requested the CAS Panel to to set aside the Indian ADDP decision of 1 August 2016 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The Athlete argued that he is the victim of sabotage because one of the Athlete's competitor mixed the prohibited substance in his drink in June 2016.

The Panel finds that due to the positive test results the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel rules that the Athlete had failed to satisfy his burden of proof and the Panel was satisfied that the most likely explanation was that the Athlete simply and intentionally ingested the prohibited substance in tablet form on more than one occasion.

Therefore the CAS Ad Hoc Division Panel decides on 21 Augustus 2016:

1.) The ad hoe Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction to hear the application filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 13 August 2016.

2.) The application filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 13 August 2016 is partially upheld.

3.) The decision rendered by the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel of the National Anti-Doping Agency on 1 August 2016 is set aside.

4.) Mr Narsingh Yadav is sanctioned with a four-year ineligibility period starting today. Any period of provisional suspension or ineligibility effectively served by Mr Narsingh Yadav 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 Narsingh Yadav from and including 25 June 2016 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes).

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

CAS OG 16/24 Darya Klishina vs IAAF

In November 2015, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Independent Commission issued a detailed report upholding allegations about systemic, state-sponsored doping in Russian track & field.

Based on findings the IAAF Council decided on 13 November 2015 to order a provisional suspension of the All Russian Athletics Federation (ARAF) and on 17 June 2016 the IAAF Council decided that ARAF remains suspended, with the result that its athletes remain ineligible to compete in international competitions.

Also on 17 June 2016, the IAAF Council also resolved to adopt IAAF Competition Rule 22.1A (the Rule) and delegated authority to a Doping Review Board (DRB) to consider applications made by athletes affiliated to RusAF for exceptional eligibility pursuant to the Rule to compete in international competitions notwithstanding RusAF's continued suspension from membership of the IAAF.

On 28 June 2016, the Russian Athlete Darya Klishina applied to the IAAF to restore her eligibility pursuant to the Rule.
On 9 July 2016, the DRB accepted the Applicant's application under the Rule for exceptional eligibility to compete in international competitions, including the Athletics competition in the Rio 2016 Olympic. The Athlete was found eligible to compete in an individual capacity as a Neutral Athlete.

On 18 July 2016, WADA's Independent Person, Mr. Richard McLaren, published on the WADA website its official independent report (the McLaren Report) describing a fraudulent, government directed scheme to protect Russian athletes from ADRVs, including with respect to disqualification during the Sochi Winter Games.

As a consequence of the findings in the McLaren Report the DRB revoked on 10 August 2016 (and issued on 12 August 2016) to its previous grant of exceptional eligibility pursuant to the First Decision and decided (the Second Decision) that the Athlete Darya Klishina was "not eligible to compete at or otherwise take part in International Competitions, including the athletics competition at the 2016 Olympic Games".

The DRB found that, within a relevant period of time defined to be between 1 January 2014 to date, there was evidence in an affidavit sworn by Professor McLaren on 7 August 2016 (the McLaren Affidavit) that the Athlete had been directly affected and tainted by the State-organised doping scheme described in the McLaren Report. The evidence also recorded that some samples of the Applicant had been subject to the methods described in the McLaren Report.

After invitation the Athlete submitted on 8 August 2016 her comment on the McLaren Report and she was requested to comment on the McLaren Affidavit.

Hereafter on 13 August 2016 the Athlete appealed the DRB’s Second Decision of 12 August 2016 with the CAS Ad Hoc Division in Rio de Janeiro. The Athlete requested the CAS Panel to set aside the IAAF’s Second Decision and to allow the Athletes to participate to the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

The Athlete argued that she had been subject to a fully adequate system outside of Russia for "a sufficiently long period", determined by the DRB to be since 1 January 2014, to satisfy the criteria of the Rule. This involved being subject to drug testing out of Russia.

She has been training in the United States since October 2013 and has been a permanent resident of the United States since March 2014. She says that she has been tested "almost exclusively outside Russia". Her tests, as shown on ADAMS, support this.

Considering the circumstances and the evidence the Panel finds that the Athlete has not established a basis for concluding that the DRB, which expressly reserved the right to reconsider its decision if new evidence was brought to its attention, was precluded from that course. The Athlete has not explained why this was precluded as a matter of law. The Athlete says that the DRB did not expressly include in the heading that the decision was interim in nature but that was the effect of the decision.

Further, there is a right to revisit a decision where new facts and evidence, not previously available, are presented to the decision maker. Under Swiss law and the laws of many other countries, such a reversal is valid in law if new circumstances have arisen (or possibly have since come to light) which would have entitled the authority to refrain from issuing the original decision had the circumstances been known at the time of its issuance, or if the decision is not final when the new decision is to be taken.

Also the Panel finds that the Athlete was provided with sufficient opportunity to present her case to the DRB and now to the CAS Panel. She was not denied procedural fairness.

The Panel rules that the relevant question is not whether the athlete was affected by the Russian System, or how, or whether she had knowledge of the way in which the system worked. The question is whether she fulfilled the criteria of the Rule. If she could establish that she was outside the country and subject to the compliant drug testing as specified, the "affect or taint" that would otherwise follow from the failure of her National Federation would not apply.

This is not a reference to the "affect or taint" arising from specific information concerning testing of the athlete's samples. Indeed, the IAAF emphasised that this case did not concern doping but concerned eligibility. Further, the IAAF did not assert that the evidence established that the Applicant had engaged in doping or other wrongful actions within the Russian System. The conclusion follows that the Athlete’s application should be upheld.

Therefore the CAS Ad Hoc Division Panel decides on 16 August 2016:

1.) The application filed on 13 August 2016 by Ms Darya Klishina is upheld.

2.) The decision issued on 10 August 2016 by the Doping Review Board of the IAAF to revoke its previous grant of exceptional eligibility to Ms Darya Klishina is set aside.

3.) Darya Klishina remains eligible to compete in international competitions, including the Olympic Games 2016, pursuant to the IAAF regulations.

CAS OG 16/23 Ihab Abdelrahman vs Egyptian NADO

Related case:
CAS 2017_A_5016 Ihab Abdelrahman vs WADA & EGY-NADO
December 18, 2017

Mr. Ihab Abdelrahman is an Egyptian Athlete qualified to compete in the javeling throw event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 20 July 2016 the Egyptian Anti-Doping Organization (EGY-NADO) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A sample tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone.
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete requested analysis of the B sample which was scheduled on 30 August 2016 due to the Barcelona laboratory being closed during the summer holidays.

Because of the provisional suspension and the pending analysis of his B sample Athlete appealed his suspension with the CAS Ad Hoc Division in Rio.
The Athlete requested the CAS Panel for suspension of the ineligibility period; lift of the provisional suspension until the analysis results of the B Sample were available; and to allow him to compete at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games. EGY-NADO submitted that it was bound by the provisions of the World Anti-Doping Code and requested the Panel to reject the appeal.

The Panel finds that the sole issue for this Panel is to determine whether the Athlete has established a legal basis for the lifting of the provisional suspension. In the Panel’s view, he has not. In assessing the remedy sought by the Athlete, the Panel must consider factors including the Athlete’s reasonable chance of success on appeal following the testing of the B sample, irreparable harm and the balance of interests.

The Panel also finds that the substantial delay between the date of B-sample testing and the communication of the results, while unfortunate for the Athlete, is not unusual in view of the case load of the various laboratories and the complexity of the analysis. Even though it is preferable that the time between the taking of the sample and its analysis be a short one, the Panel also notes that the Athlete was able to compete during that time period. The Panel does not ignore that the specific time line in this case (notification of the AAF shortly before the Rio Olympic Games) made it difficult for the Athlete to defend his case. However, this aspect in relation to the competition schedule and the delay in the analysis of the sample, in and of itself, is not a sufficient reason to stay or suspend the mandatory provisional suspension.

Therefore the CAS Ad Hoc Division Panel concludes that the Athlete has not met the requirements to lift the provisional suspension and decides on 16 August 2016 to dismiss the appeal.