CAS 2022/A/8970 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Slovenian Anti-Doping Organisation (SLOADO) & Dejan Mlakar

On 11 January 2022 the Disciplinary Board of the Slovenian Anti-Doping Organisation (SLOADO) decided to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the basketball player for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone. Thereupon the SLOADO Appeals Body decided on 20 April 2022 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the SLOADO 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.

WADA contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor the source of the prohibited substance. Neither had he demonstated that he had purchased and consumed the 27 supplements in question, nor that these supplements were contaminated.

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.
• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• He failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor the source of the prohibited substance.
• Without corroborating evidence his contamination theory is pure speculation.
• He acted recklessly with his use of at least 27 supplements without any approprate checks or consultations.
• There are nog grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore The Court of Arbitration for Sport rules that:

1.) The appeal filed by World Anti-Doping Agency on 14 June 2020 against the decision rendered by the Appeals Body of the Slovenian Anti-Doping Organisation on 20 April 2022 is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the Appeals Body of the Slovenian Anti-Doping Organisation on 20 April 2022 is set aside.

3.) Mr Dejan Mlakar is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Articles 7.1 and 7.2 of the Anti-Doping Rules of the Slovenian Anti-Doping Organisation. Mr Dejan Mlakar is sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting on the date on which the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division award enters into force. Any period of provisional suspension and/or ineligibility effectively served by Mr Dejan Mlakar before the entry into force of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division award shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served. All competitive results obtained by Mr Dejan Mlakar from and including 13 August 2021 until the date set forth below are disqualified, with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes).

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

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

CAS 2022/A/8895 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) & Ilya Bogatyrev

In September 2021 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Boxer Ilya Bogatyrev for 3 whereabouts filing failures and 3 missed tests within a 12 month period.

On 4 April 2022 the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in May 2022 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the DADC 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 2 years.

Both WADA and RUSADA contended that the Athlete had admitted the violation and acknowledged that he had acted negligently. Although the Athlete did not sought any mitigation it was the sole initiative of the DADC to reduce the standard sanction.

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

• WADA established that the Athlete had a combination of 3 missed tests and 3 filing failure within 12 months.
• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• He is a young inexperienced athlete suffering from a great degree of stress and overwhelmed with his multiple duties.
• He acted with a higher level of fault and there are some grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 September 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) on 18 May 2022 against the decision rendered by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) on 4 April 2022 in the matter concerning Ilya Bogatyrev is partially upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) on 4 April 2022 in the matter concerning Ilya Bogatyrev is amended as follows:

(i) Ilya Bogatyrev shall serve a period of ineligibility of twenty (20) months as from the date of this award, with credit given for the period of ineligibility already served from 7 October 2021 until and including 6 October 2022.

(ii) All competitive results achieved by Ilya Bogatyrev from 30 April 2021 through 7 October 2021 shall be disqualified with all resulting Consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes.

3.) (…).

4.) (…).

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

CAS 2022/A/8886 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Portuguese Anti-Doping Authority & Daniel Eduardo Moreira Silva

In March 2021 the Anti-Doping Authority Portugal (ADoP) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Daniel Eduardo Moreira Silva after an Expert Panel concluded that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he had used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method.

Previously the Athlete was sanctioned for 2 years from May 2016 after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Oxandrolone.

Nevertheless the ADoP Anti-Doping Disciplinary College (ADDC) decided on 10 January 2022 to acquit the Athlete. The College deemed that the charge against the Athlete was null and void due to the violation was considered committed by the Athlete not intentional, nor negligently.

Hereafter in May 2022 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the ADoP decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

WADA contended that the ADDC erroneously applied Portuguese criminal and administrative procedures to the anti-doping proceedings. Furthermore the Athlete's right of defence in the proceedings had been manifestly safeguarded.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence and the issues raised by the Parties and determindes that:

• An anti-doping rule violation occurred in the form of an irregular ABP.
• The Athlete failed to demonstrate that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.
• He committed a second anti-doping rule violation.
• ADoP was correctly cited as a Respondent in this case.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 July 2023:

1.) The Appeal filed by WADA on 13 May 2022 against the decision of 10 January 2022 of the Anti-Doping Disciplinary College of the Portuguese Anti-Doping Authority is admissible.

2.) The decision of 10 January 2022 of the Anti-doping Disciplinary College of the Portuguese Anti-Doping Authority is set aside.

3.) Mr Daniel Eduardo Moreira Silva is sanctioned with an eight-year period of ineligibility starting on the date on which this Award enters into force. Any period of ineligibility effectively served by Daniel Eduardo Moreira Silva before the entry into force of the CAS Award shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Daniel Eduardo Moreira Silva from and including 28 May 2018 up to the expiry of the period of ineligibility shall be invalidated, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes.

5.) (…).

6.) (…).

CAS 2022/A/8809 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) & Alexey Slepov

In January 2021 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Biathlete Alexey Slepov for 3 whereabouts failures and 2 missed tests within a 12 month period.

During the 1st and 2nd whereabouts failures the Athlete was included in the Registered Testing Pool (RTP) of the International Biathlon Union (IBU). During his 3rd whereabouts failure he was included in the RTP of RUSADA since 1 May 2020.

On 11 February 2022 the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete without disqualification of his results.

Hereafter in April 2022 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the DADC 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 2 years.

Both WADA and RUSADA contended that the Athlete had admitted the violation and acknowledged that he had acted negligently. Although the Athlete did not sought any mitigation it was the sole initiative of the DADC to reduce the standard sanction.

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

• WADA established that the Athlete had a combination of 2 missed tests and 1 filing failure within 12 months.
• The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• The Athlete is higly experienced, provided whereabouts information for many years and has been subject to doping control since 2012.
• His degree of fault is high and there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 September 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) on 12 April 2022 against the decision rendered by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) on 30 September 2021 in the matter concerning Alexey Slepov is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) on 30 September 2021 in the matter concerning Alexey Slepov is amended as follows:

(i) Alexey Slepov shall serve a period of ineligibility of twenty-four (24) months as from the date of this award, with credit given for the period of ineligibility already served from 30 September 2021 until and including 29 September 2022.

(ii) All competitive results achieved by Alexey Slepov from 1 July 2020 through 30 September 2021 shall be disqualified with all resulting Consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes.

3.) (…).

4.) (…).

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

• CAS 2022/A/8802 Nijat Rahimov v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)
• CAS 2022/A/9048 International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Nijat Rahimov
  
  

Related case:

CAS 2021_ADD_21 IWF vs Nijat Rahimov
March 22, 2022

Mr. Nijat Rahimov is an elite weightlifter, competing for Kazakhstan and previously represented Azerbaijan. In November 2013 the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) sanctioned the Athlete for 2 years after he tested positive for 2 prohibited substances.

In September 2019 WADA instigated an investigation known as “Operation Arrow” into the existence of urine substitution at the time of sample collection in the sport of Weightlifting. As part of that investigation, negative samples provided by weightlifting athletes since 1 January 2012 were, where available, subjected to DNA testing to discover whether any of the negative samples supposedly provided by a particular athlete were in fact provided by another person, as indicated by differences in the DNA between the various samples attributed to that athlete.

As a result of the WADA investigations the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IWF, reported in January 2021 an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for the use of a prohibited method. Consequently the Court of Arbitration Anti-Doping Division (CAS-ADD) decided on 22 March 2022 to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in April 2022 the Athlete, and in July 2022 the IWF, appealed the CAS-ADD Decision with the CAS Appeal Division. The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision, whereas the IWF requested to uphold this Decision.

The IWF contended that 4 samples collected in 2016 were collected from doubles impersonating the Athlete. Moreover DNA analysis and evaluation of his ABP confirmed that these 4 samples did not belong to the Athlete.

The Athlete denied any wrongdoing: he was not notified of such doping control by the coaches or by the DCO, nor was he present at the doping controls. Further he alleged that there had been departures from the ISTI.

By contrast the IWF deemed that the Athlete provided misleading Whereabouts Information and did not attend the doping controls on 15 March, 10 June, 17 July and 18 July 2016.  Accordingly the Athlete allowed for sample substitution to occur thus commiting and anti-doping rule violation.

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

• The Athlete's explanation that he could not have contributed to the anti-doping rule violation as he ignored everything about the ongoing doping controls is not convincing.
• He facilitated the sample substitution through the use of doubles at the doping controls.
• The Athlete knew or should have known that sample substitution would be performed through the use of doubles at the doping controls.
• The Athlete is responsible for the use of a prohibited method on 4 occasions which constitutes the anti-doping rule violation of use of a prohibited method.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 September 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Nijat Rahimov on 12 April 2022 against the Award rendered by the CAS Anti-Doping Division in the matter CAS 2021/ADD/21 International Weightlifting Federation v. Nijat Rahimov on 22 March 2022, is dismissed.

2.) The appeal filed by the International Weightlifting Federation against the Award rendered by the CAS Anti-Doping Division in the matter CAS 2021/ADD/21 International Weightlifting Federation v. Nijat Rahimov on 22 March 2022, is dismissed.

3.) The Award issued on 22 March 2022 by the CAS Anti-Doping Division in the matter CAS 2021/ADD/21 International Weightlifting Federation v. Nijat Rahimov is confirmed.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

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

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 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 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 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 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.