Related cases:

• CAS 2017_O_5332 IAAF vs RusAF & Elena Slesarenko
  May 3, 2018
• IOC 2016 IOC vs Elena Slesarenko
  November 10, 2016

Ms. Elena Slesarenko is a Russian Athlete competing at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, the Daegu 2011 IAAF World Championships and at the Moscow 2013 IAAF World Championships.

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. 

In 2016, both the IOC and IAAF (now: World Athletics) decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2008 Olympic Games and during the Daegu 2011 IAAF World Championships. Reanalysis in the Lausanne Lab revealed the presence of the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol) in all the samples of the Athlete Yelena Slesarenko.

Consequently the Sole Arbitrator (CAS 2017/O/5332) decided on 3 May 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete due to aggravating circumstances. All results achieved by the Athlete from 23 August 2008 until 22 August 2012 were disqualified, including forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money obtained during this period.

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 December 2021 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics reported a new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Yelena Slesarenko for the use of the prohibited substances Metenolone and Methasterone in 2013 on multiple occasions.

After notification the Athlete denied the charges and also denied that she was involved in any manipulations with doping samples. Thereupon the Athlete failed to respond to the AIU communications.

Without the Athlete's response the AIU deems that the she has waived her right to a hearing, to have accepted the asserted anti-doping rule violations and the sanction rendered by the AIU.

The AIU considers that the Athlete had already served a 4 year period of ineligibility until October 2020, including disqualification of results from 23 August 2008 until 22 Augustus 2012. Under the Rules the AIU concludes that the 2013 violations shall be considered as a single first violation together with the previous violations committed in 2008 and 2011.

Further the AIU regards that the Athlete's 2013 violations can't be subject to a more severe sanction. As a result no additional period of ineligibility can be imposed on the Athlete for the 2013 anti-doping rule violations. However the AIU deems that there are indeed grounds for the disqualificaton of the Athlete's results from 2013 until 2016.

Therefore the AIU decides on 11 July 2022 to disqualify the Athlete's results from 18 July 2013 until 3 October 2016 with all of the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, points, prize money and prizes.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2019-026 Appeal Decision - Football
September 26, 2019

In June 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported anti-doping rule violations against the football player after his A and B samples - collected on two separate occasions in March 2017 - tested positive for the prohibited substances Furosemide and Sibutramine.

After notification no provisional suspension was ordered while the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. The Athlete asserted that the source was a contaminated supplement that he had received from a friend. Yet, analysis of his supplements revealed no prohibited substances.

The TJD-AD Panel finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Panel considers that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substances had entered his system. He mentioned his medication on the Doping Control Form. By contrast he failed to mention any product that could contain the prohibited substances.

Finally the Panel regards that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 26 September 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 12 March 2017.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2018-031 Disciplinary Decision - Athletics
March 13, 2018

On 13 March 2018 the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD Panel) decided to impose a 30 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his 3rd anti-doping rule violation after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Recombinant Human Erythropoietin (rhEPO).

Previously the Athlete was sanctioned for 2 months until December 2010 for the presence of Oxilofrine (methylsynephrine) and again sanctioned for 4 years until October 2016 for the presence of Erythropoietin (EPO).

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the decision with the TJD-Appeal Panel and argued the iron supplement he had used had increased his EPO level. Yet, the Appeal Panel rejected this argument because exogenous rhEPO was found in the Athlete's samples and not endogenous EPO.

Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Panel decides on 6 June 2018 to uphold the First Instance Decision for the imposition of a 30 year sanction and to dismiss the Athlete's appeal.

In August 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the powerlifter after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Hydrochlorothiazide and Trenbolone.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the ABCD. The Athlete stated that he intentionally had used the substance and as treatment for his injury including Cortisone.

The parties in this case reached an agreement and the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal was requested for approval of the sanction into a decision.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides on 3 May 2018 to impose a 3 year and 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 2 April 2017.

Related case:

TJD-AD 2018-052 Appeal Decision - Athletics
June 6, 2018

The Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Recombinant Human Erythropoietin (rhEPO).

Previously the Athlete was sanctioned for 2 months until December 2010 for the presence of Oxilofrine (methylsynephrine) and again sanctioned for 4 years until October 2016 for the presence of EPO.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and asserted with evidence that he had used prescribed iron supplements as treatment for his condition.

The TJD-AD Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Panel considers that this is the Athlete's 3rd anti-doping rule violation and that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the TJD-AD Panel decides by majority on 13 March 2018 to impose a 30 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting backdated on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 9 June 2017.

In December 2020 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the wrestler after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrostenedione, 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone) and Tamoxifen.

After notification the Athlete admitted the violation, accepted a provisional suspension and signed the Acceptance of Consequences Form for a sanction proposed by ABCD. WADA granted a 1 month reduction of the sanction.

Thereupon the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD) was requested to render a decision in accordance with the agreement between the parties that allows one month reduction of the sanction.

Therefore theTJD-AD decides on 13 March 2018 to impose a 3 year and 11 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Ms. Yelena Arzhakova is a Russian Athlete competing at the Helsinki 2012 IAAF European Championships and at the London 2012 Olympic Games.

Previously the Athlete served a 2 year period of ineligibility from January 2013 until January 2015 for a ABP violation including disqualification of her results from 12 July 2011.

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 December 2021 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics reported a new anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Yelena Arzhakova for the use of the prohibited substances Ostarine and Testosterone.

After notification the Athlete failed to respond to the AIU communications. Without her response the AIU deems that she has waived her right to a hearing, to have accepted the asserted anti-doping rule violations and the sanction rendered by the AIU.

The AIU considers that the Athlete had already served a 2 year period of ineligibility until January 2015, including disqualification of her results from 12 July 2011. Under the Rules the AIU concludes that the 2012 violations shall be considered as a single first violation together with the previous violations committed.

Further the AIU holds that the Athlete's 2012 violations can be subject to a more severe sanction. Consequently due to aggravating circumstances an additional period of ineligibility of 2 years can be imposed on the Athlete for the 2012 anti-doping rule violations including disqualifation of all her results.

Therefore the AIU decides on 11 July 2022 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the Decision. All the Athlete's results from 29 January 2015 onwards are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, points, prize money and prizes.

Related case:

IOC 2016 IOC vs Kirill Ikonnikov
October 19, 2016

Mr. Kirill Ikonnikov is a Russian Athlete competing at the London 2012 Olympic Games.

Previously the Athlete was sanctioned for 2 years until November 2014 for his first anti-doping rule violation and sanctioned for another 8 years from April 2016 until April 2024 for his second anti-doping rule violation.

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 December 2021 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics reported new multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete committed in 2012 and in 2014 for the use of the prohibited substances Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone, Desoxymethyltestosterone, Methasterone and Oxandrolone.

After notification the Athlete failed to respond to the AIU communications. Without his response the AIU deems that he has waived his right to a hearing, to have accepted the asserted anti-doping rule violations and the sanction rendered by the AIU.

The AIU considers that the Athlete had already served a 2 year period of ineligibility for his first anti-doping rule violation and currently is serving an 8 year period of ineligibility for his second anti-doping rule violation including disqualification of his results.

Under the Rules the AIU concludes that the 2012 violations shall be considered as a single first violation together with the first committed anti-doping rule violations. Also the 2014 violations shall be considered a second violation together with the committed second anti-doping rule violations.

The AIU establishes that there are aggravating circumstances in this case and that an additional period of ineligibility of 2 years can be imposed on the Athlete for the 2012 anti-doping rule violations.

The AIU holds that the Athlete had already received the maximum sanction of 8 years for his second anti-doping rule violation. It follows that no additional period of ineligibility can be imposed for the 2014 anti-doping rule violations.

Therefore the AIU decides on 9 June 2022 to impose a additional 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete to run consecutively to the 8 year period of ineligibility that the Athlete is currently serving for his second anti-doping rule violation since 4 April 2016.

In addition to the Athlete's results that already had been disqualified the AIU deems that now all the Athlete's results from 4 July 2012 shall be disqualified until the date of this decision.

In February 2022 the English and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Cricket player Tom Wood after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Terbutaline.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He demonstrated with evidence that he suffered from asthma since he was a child and that the Terbutaline was used as prescribed medication.

The Athlete requested for a reduced sanction on the basis of No Significant Fault or Negligence. He asserted that in his career the Club's medical staff was aware of his use of his inhaler whereas the anti-doping training he had received was inadequate.

He understood that as a second team player using medication he could apply retrospectively. Yet, his application for a retroactive TUE was rejected in December 2021.

The ECB already had accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the substance was used as prescribed medication. The ECB acknowledged that in the ADR and in the material published online it remained unclear to determine if a player is in the National TUE Pool and whether he must apply in advance for a TUE or can apply retroactively.

Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator did not accept the Athlete's assertion that the anti-doping training he had received was inadequate in respect of advance or retroactive TUE applications.

Yet, on a balance of probabilities the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete and his Club were convinced that applying for a TUE for the Athlete and his inhaler in the case was not a priority and that he could apply retroactively if he was ever tested and it returned positive.

In view of the circumstances the Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. Further the Sole Arbitrator regards that there was some substantial delay in the proceedings due to the Athlete's application for a retroactive TUE based upon advice received.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 24 June 2022 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting back dated on 8 January 2022.

In May 2015 the National Doping Control Commission of Chile (CNCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ignacio Rojas Silva after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Boldenone and Tamoxifen.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Disciplinary Panel of the Tribunal de Expertos en Dopaje (TED).

The Athlete accepted the test result and alleged that the supplements he had used were the source of the prohibited substances.

The Panel finds that the presence of prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the TED Disciplinary Panel decides on 15 December 2015 to impose 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 15 December 2015.