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.

CAS OG 16/21 Elena Anyushina & Elexey Korovashkov v. ICF & RCF

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. Also Professor McLaren provided specific pieces of evidence related to the two Athletes and he filed an affidavit in this case with the CAS Ad Hoc Division.

On 24 July 2016, the IOC Executive Board issued a decision (the "IOC Decision") concerning the participation of Russian athletes in the Rio Games. According to this decision the following was stated:

"2. Entry will be accepted by the IOC only if an athlete is able to provide evidence to the full satisfaction of his or her International Federation (IF) in relation to the following criteria:
[. . .]
The IFs should carry out an individual analysis of each athlete's anti-doping record, taking into account only reliable adequate international tests, and the specificities of the athlete's sport and its rules, in order to ensure a level playing field.
[. . .]
3. The ROC is not allowed to enter any athlete for the Olympic Games Rio 2016 who has ever been sanctioned for doping, even if he or she has served the sanction".

As a consequence of the findings in the McLaren Report and the IOC Decision the ICF decided on 26 July 2016 to impose an immediate suspension on five Russian Canoe Sprint athletes, including the athletes Elena Anyushina and Alexey Korovashkov, and removed them from the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

Hereafter on 6 August 2016 the two Russian Athletes appealed the ICF decision with the CAS Ad Hoc Division in Rio.

On 9 Augustus the ICF submitted that due to additional information about the athlete Elena Ayushina’s samples and the need for further investigation the ICF had agreed to withdraw the athlete’s suspension. Therefore the Athlete is eligible to compete at de Rio 2016 Olympic Games should she meet the IOC’s requirements on anti-doping testing and that the ROC select her.
On 11 August 2016 the IOC confirmed that the Athlete Elena Ayshina was eligible to compete at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games and she withdrew her application with CAS.

The other Russian Athlete Alexey Korovashkov requested the CAS Panel to set aside the ICF decision of 25 July 2016; to allow him to compete at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games; and he filed several arguments in his defence.
The ICF requested the Panel to dismiss the Athlete’s appeal.

The Panel notes that it refers generally to the reasons for the decisions rendered in the procedures CAS OG 16/04, CAS OG 16/13 and CAS OG 16/19 (the earlier CAS decisions), with which this Panel agrees.
As has been stated in the earlier CAS decisions, it is accepted that the IOC has acted at all times in good faith. In the present case, the findings in the McLaren Report have not been challenged.

Considering the Athlete’s arguments the CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to establish a basis for setting aside the ICF decision that he is ineligible to compete at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

Therefore on 11 August 2016 the CAS Ad Hoc Division Panel decides:
1.) The application filed on 6 August 2016 by Ms. Elena Anyushina is deemed withdrawn.
2.) The application filed on 6 August 2016 by Mr. Alexey Korovashkov is dismissed.

Mr. Ivan Yushkov is a Russian Athlete competing the short put Athletics event in the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2008 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2008.

In May 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances stanozolol, oxandrolone and dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol).

After notification the Athlete failed to respond. The Russian Olympic Committee submitted that the presence of the Prohibited Substances had been been established and asked the IOC Disciplinary Commission to issue its decision accordingly.

With the positive test results the IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides on 15 August 2016 that the Athlete Ivan Yushkov:

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad in Beijing in 2008 (presence and/or use, of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen),
2.) is disqualified from the shot put event in which he participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games Beijing 2008.
3.) The IAAF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
4.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
5.) This decision enters into force immediately.

CAS 2017/0/5330 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. Russian Athletic Federation (RUSAF) & Alexander Pogorelov

Related case:
CAS 2017_O_5330 IAAF vs RusAF & Alexander Pogorelov
March 8, 2018

Mr. Alexander Pogorelov is a Russian Athlete competing the decathlon Athletics event in the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2008 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2008.

In May 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol). After notification the Athlete failed to respond.

With the positive test results the IOC Disciplinary Commission finds that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides on 15 August 2016 that the Athlete Alexander Pogorelov:

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad in Beijing in 2008 (presence and/or use, of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen),
2.) is disqualified from the decathlon event in which he participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games Beijing 2008, and
3.) has the diploma obtained in the decathlon event withdrawn and is ordered to return same.
4.) The IAAF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
6.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the diploma awarded in connection with the decathlon event to the Athlete.
7.) This decision enters into force immediately.

Related case:

World Athletics 2022 WA vs Anastasiya Kapachinskaya
January 11, 2023

Ms. Anastasia Kapachinskaya is a Russian Athlete competing the 400m Athletics event in the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2008 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2008.

In May 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances stanozolol and dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol).

After notification the Athlete replied that she was not interested. She waved her right to be heard and did not file a statement in her defence.
With the positive test results the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 15 August 2016 that the Athlete Anastasia Kapachinskaya:

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad in Beijing in 2008 (presence and/or use, of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen),

2.) is disqualified from all the events in which she participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games Beijing 2008, namely, the Women 400m and the Women 4x400m relay, and

3.) has the medals, the medallist pins and the diplomas obtained in the Women 400m and the Women 4x400m relay withdrawn and is ordered to return the same.

4.) The Russian Federation Team is disqualified from the Women 4x400m relay. The corresponding medals and diplomas are withdrawn and shall be returned.

5.) The IAAF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.

6.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.

7.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the medals, the medallist pins and the diplomas awarded in connection with the Women 400m and in connection with the Women 4x400m relay to the Athlete and to the other team members of the Women 4 x 400m Russian Federation Team.

8.) This decision enters into force immediately.

Ms. Yulia Chermoshanskaya is a Russian Athlete competing the 200m and 4x100m Athletics event in the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2008 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2008.

In May 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances stanozolol and dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol).
After notification the Athlete submitted that she did not accept the test results, she waived her right to be heard and filed a statement in her defence.

She stated that she was injured in May 2008 and was treated including injections, which helped her to qualify for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. She submitted that she was not able to find package and name of the medication provided by the national team doctors and questioned the medication provided to her at the time.

Considering the test results and the Athlete’s statement the Disciplinary Commission finds that two anti-doping violations are established pursuant to both Art. 2.1 and/or Art. 2.2 of the Rules.
Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 14 August 2016 that the Athlete Yulia Chermoshanskaya:

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad in Beijing in 2008 (presence and/or use, of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen),
2.) is disqualified from all the events in which she participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games Beijing 2008, namely, the Women 200m and the Women 4x100m relay, and
3.) has the medal, the medallist pin and the diplomas obtained in the Women 200m and the Women 4x100m relay withdrawn and is ordered to return the same.
4.) The Russian Federation Team is disqualified from the Women 4x100m relay. The corresponding medals and diplomas are withdrawn and shall be returned.
5.) The IAAF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned events accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
6.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
7.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the medals, the medallist pins and the diplomas awarded in connection with the Women 200m and in connection with the Women 4x100m relay to the Athlete and to the other team members of the Women 4x100m Russian Federation Team.
8.) This decision enters into force immediately.

- World Anti-Doping Code and the law : conflict or reinforcement? / Herman Ram. - (Sport en Recht (2009) 16 : p. 11-24)
- The WAD code : “Guilty unless proven innocent?” / Jan Loorbach. – (Sport en Recht (2009) 16 : p. 25-34)

Published in Dutch in:

The WADA-Code : passing the boundry of law and ethics? / H.T. van Staveren (red). - Vereniging voor Sport en Recht. – Nieuwegein : Arko Sports Media, 2009. – isbn 978954721024. - (Sport en Recht (2009) deel 16 : p. 7-9, 11-24, 25-34)

Abstract:

described are the relevant legal facts about the second World Anti-Doping Code effective from 1 January 2009 with a short analysis.

- World Anti-Doping Code en de wet : botsing of versterking? / Herman Ram. – (Sport en Recht (2009) 16 : p. 11-24)
- De WAD code : “Guilty unless proven innocent?” / Jan Loorbacht. – (Sport en Recht (2009) 16 : p. 25-34)

Gepubliceerd in:

De WADA-Code : overschrijding van grenzen van recht en ethiek? / H.T. van Staveren (red). – Vereniging voor Sport en Recht. - Nieuwegein : Arko Sports Media, 2009. - isbn 978-90-5472-102-4. - (Sport en Recht (2009) deel 16)

Inhoud: World Anti-Doping Code en de wet : botsing of versterking? / Herman Ram:

- Vooraf
- Korte geschiedenis van het mondiale antidopingbeleid
- WADA en de Wereld Anti-Doping Code
- Van Code 2003 naar Code 2009
- Probleemgebieden en casuïstiek
- Het recht op bescherming van de privacy
- Het recht op een eerlijk proces
- Adverse Analystical Findings
- Non Analytical Findings
- Het legaliteitsbeginsel
- Het proportionaliteitsbeginsel
- Het gelijkheidsbeginsel
- Anti-Doping wetgeving
- Conclusie en afronding
- Noten

Inhoud: De WAD code : “Guilty unless proven innocent?” / Jan Loorbach:

- Inleiding
- Plaats van de Code
- De constructie van de “violation”, de strafbaarstelling en het bewijsconcept
- Burden and Standards of Proof
- De strafbaarheid: strict liability
- CAS-opinion op WADA-verzoek
- Doelomschrijving; overschrijding
- Noten

Mr. Pavel Kryvitski is an Belarussian Athlete competing the hammer throw event in the Londen 2012 Olympic Games.

In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012.

In May 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances stanozolol and dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol).

After notification the Athlete submitted that he accepted the test results and failed to attend the hearing of the IOC Disciplinary Commission nor did he file a statement in his defence.

With the positive test results the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 8 August 2016 that the Athlete Pavel Kryvitski:

1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXX Olympiad in London in 2012 (presence, and/or use, of Prohibited Substances or their Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen),
2.) is disqualified from the event in which he participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games London 2012, namely the hammer throw event, in which he ranked 28th.
3.) The IAAF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
4.) The National Olympic Committee of the Republic of Belarus shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
5.) This decision enters into force immediately.