2023/ADD/59 International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Mr. Armen Alekyan

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 June 2022 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF), reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Armen Alekyan for the use of the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone), Oxandrolone and Methylhexaneamine in June and October 2012.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Ultimately in May 2023 the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure.

At first the Athlete admitted the violation and accepted the consequences. However in July 2022 he retracted his admission and denied the violations.

In his submission the Athlete rejected the charges and requested for annulment of the case. Further he disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by WADA, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov.

In view of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and that there are aggravating circumstances present in this case. The Arbitrator establishes that the Athlete only denied the charges and failed to file any statement or evidence in his defence.

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

1.) The request for arbitration filed on 10 May 2023 by the International Weightlifting Federation is partially upheld.

2.) Mr Armen Alekyan is found to have committed anti-doping rule violations under Article 2.2 of the 2012 IWF ADP.

3.) Mr Armen Alekyan is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting on the date of this Award. Any period of provisional suspension effectively served by Mr Armen Alekyan before the date of this Award shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Mr Armen Alekyan from and including 21 June 2012 until 20 June 2016 be disqualified, with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes).

5.) (…).

6.) (…).

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

2022/ADD/52 Federation International de Ski (FIS) v. Ms Valentyna Kaminska

Ms Valentyna Kamiska is a Ukrainian cross-country skier, competing in the Women’s ski events at the Beijing Winter Olympics in February 2022.

In February 2022 the International Testing Agency, on behalf of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances 1,4-dimethylpentylamine, Heptaminol and Mesterolone. Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

In October 2022 the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure. A Partial Award was rendered based on the written submissions of the Parties.

Consequently the CAS Sole Arbitrator decided on 6 March 2023 that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. Also the Athlete's results obtained at the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics were disqualified.

Hereafter the proceedings against the Athlete were continued by the Internationation Ski Federation (FIS) regarding the further consequences of the anti-doping rule violation to be imposed on the Athlete.

The Athlete admitted the violation, waived her right for a hearing and accepted the sanction proposed by FIS. She denied the intentional use of the substances, requested for a reduced sanction and argued that she had been tested before without issues.

The Athlete was unable to demonstrate the source of the  substances. She assumed that contaminated supplements might be the source of the positve test.

Because of the war in Ukrain the Athlete was only able to ship 5 of her 14 supplements she had used in June 2022 to the Lausanne Laboratory for analysis. However the Laboratory established that these supplements tested negative for all three prohibited subsances.

FIS contended that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor the source of the prohibited substances. Accordingly FIS requested the Panel to impose a sanction of 4 years on the Athlete.

The Sole Arbitrator confirms that the presence of the prohibited substances had been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that she had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Arbitrator determines that the Athlete had admitted the violation, yet failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional. He considers that the war in Ukrain makes it difficult for the Athlete, if not impossible, to identify the source of the prohibited substance. 

The Arbitrator deems that the fact that three different substances were found in the Athlete's samples does lessen the propability of contamination. Furthermore the Arbitrator is not satisfied that the Athlete took all possible steps to determine the origin of the contamination.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 November 2023 that:

1.) The Application filed by the Fédération Internationale de Ski & Snowboard on 3 April 2023 is upheld.

2.) Ms. Valentyna Kaminska is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.1 and/or Article 2.2 of the FIS ADR.

3.) Ms. Valentyna Kaminska is is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting on the date on which the CAS award enters into force. The period of ineligibility served during the period of provisional suspension imposed on Ms Valentyna Kaminska from 21 February 2022 through the date of the present Award shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

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

2022/ADD/49 International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Yunder Beytula

In June 2021 and August 2021 the International Testing Agency, on behalf of the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF), reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Bulgarian weightlifter Yunder Beytula. The IWF charged the Athlete with the following violations:

• tampering with the doping control process by purposely providing false Whereabouts information to the IWF in order to obtain advance notice of forthcoming anti-doping controls;
• refusal to submit to sample collection; and
• after being notified and provisionally suspended, testing positive for human growth hormone (hGH).

In June 2022 the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure.

Previously in January 2014 the Athlete had been sanctioned for 2 years after he tested positive for the banned substances Stanozolol and Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone.

Doping Control Officers (DCO) established in October 2019 and in November 2019 that the Athlete was not present at the house of his parents, because he had moved to the city of Dobrich. The Athlete had not updated his Whereabouts address in ADAMS, yet when called he timely arrived and provided a sample.

In December 2020 the DCO went directly to the Athlete's address in Dobrich where the he provided a sample. On all three occasions he was instructed to update his Whereabouts location in ADAMS.

In December 2020 two DCOs went directly to the Athlete's address in Dobrich despite he had failed to update his Whereabouts location in ADAMS. This time the Athlete responded angry and agitated and told the DCOs to come back one hour later of in the evening.

When the DCOs returned to the Athlete's address one hour later the he failed to respond to the doorbell, nor responded to the telephone calls. The DCOs reported that they clearly heard the presence of the Athlete inside the apartment.

Consequently in June 2021 a provisional suspension was ordered because the Athlete had tampered with the Doping Control. Thereupon in July 2021 the Athlete's A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance human Growth Hormone (hGH).

The Athlete denied that he purposely had provided wrong  Whereabouts information to the IWF. Futher he explained his conduct at his apartment in December 2020 and alleged that the DCOs never had returned, neither had called him.

The ITF contended that not only had the Athlete committed a second anti-doping rule violation, he also committed a third anti-doping rule violation after he had been notified and provisionally suspended. The ITF argued that he acted intentionally and by contrast failed to demonstrate that these violations were not intentional.

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

• The Athlete had Tampered with the Doping Control Process and accordingly committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• In December 2020 he Refused or, at the very least, Failed to submit to Sample Collection and accordingly committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• The Presence of a prohibited substance had been established in his samples and accordingly he committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• The erroneous Whereabouts information on the ADAMS system was done knowingly by him.
• The Athlete acknowledged having opened the door to the DCOs, recognizing who they were and did not challenge having been notified of the doping control.
• He has not compelling justification for his failure to allow the DCOs to enter his apartment, nor for not opening the door one hour later, nor for not answering their phone calls.
• His second anti-doping rule violations shall be considered together as one single violation.
• After being notified and provisionally suspended he committed a third anti-doping rule violation for the presence of a prohibited substance.
• He failed to demonstrate that these violations were not committed intentionally.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 November 2023 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by the International Weightlifting Federation on 17 June 2022 against Mr Yunder Beytula is upheld.

2.) Mr Yunder Beytula is found to have committed one or multiple anti-doping rule violations for Tampering or Attempted Tampering with the doping control process pursuant to Article 2.5 of the 2019 IWF Anti-Doping Rules.

3.) Mr Yunder Beytula is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation for Refusal or Failure to Submit to sample collection pursuant to Article 2.3 of the 2019 IWF Anti-Doping Rules.

4.) Mr Yunder Beytula is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation for Presence of a Prohibited Substance in his systems pursuant to Article 2.1 of the 2021 IWF Anti-Doping Rules.

5.) Mr Yunder Beytula is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of eight (8) years for the anti-doping rule violations committee in 2019 pursuant to Articles 2.3 and 2.5 of the 2019 IWF Anti-Doping Rules, with effect from the date of this Award, with credit provided for the period of ineligibility served between 10 June 2021 and the date of this award.

6.) Mr Yunder Beytula is sanctioned with a lifetime period of ineligibility for the anti-doping rule violation committee in 2021 pursuant to Article 2.1 of the 2021 IWF Anti-Doping Rules.

7.) The periods of ineligibility shall be served consecutively.

8.) All competitive results obtained by Mr Yunder Beytula from and including 7 October 2019 and the date of 10 June 2021 are disqualified with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

9.) (…).

10.) (…).

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

• CAS 2023/A/9451 Association Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) v Ms Kamila Valieva
• CAS 2023/A/9455 International Skating Union (ISU) v Ms Kamila Valieva and The Russian Doping Agency
• CAS 2023/A/9456 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) and Ms Kamila Valieva

Related cases:

• CAS OG_2022_08 IOC, WADA, ISU vs RUSADA, Kamila Valieva & ROC
  February 17, 2022
• CAS OG_2022_11 United States Figure Skating Team vs IOC
  March 30, 2022
  
  

---

In February 2022 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva (15) after her sample, collected on 25 December 2021, tested positive for the prohibited substance Trimetazidine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered on 8 Februay 2022 and consequently the Athlete was prohibited from participation in the 2022 Beijing Olympic Games.

Yet, the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) decided on 9 February 2022 to lift the Athlete's provisional suspension as it deemed that under the Russian ADR and the WADC 2021 the minor Athlete is a Protected Person.

The DADC accepted the explanation and evidence that the prohibited substance entered the Athlete's system through the use of a contaminated product, i.e. the medication used by her grandfather.

Hereafter on 11 and 12 February the IOC, WADA and ISU appealed the DADC Decision of 9 February with the CAS Ad Hoc Division at the Beijing 2022 Olympic Games.

Nevertheless the CAS Ad Hoc Division dismissed the appeals and decides on 17 February 2022 that the Appealed Provisional Suspension regarding the Athlete should remain lifted.

---

On 24 January 2023 the RUSADA DADC rendered its final decision and concluded that the Athlete had acted with No Fault or Negligence and without the application of a period of ineligibility. The DADC disqualified her results at the Russian 2021 National Championships, but not her results at the Beijing 2022 Olympic Games.

Hereafter in February 2023 RUSADA, ISU and WADA appealed the DADC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

RUSADA, ISU and WADA contended that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation despite that she is a Protected Person. Accordingly they requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose an appropriate sanction on the Athlete based on her degree of Fault.

The Athlete accepted the test results and argued that she is a Protected Person. Further she objected the CAS jurisdiction in this case.

She asserted that the violation was not intentional and that she acted with utmost caution to keep clean. She was unaware that her grandfather was using a prohibited substance as a heart medication, thus she was unaware of the potentional risk of a contamination.

In this case the Panel assessed and addressed the evidence and issues raised by the Parties:

• CAS jurisdiction
• The anti-doping rule violation
• The sanctions
• Protected person
• Burdens and standards of proof
• Trimetazidine

Ultimately the Panel concludes:

• The Athlete failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that she did not commit the violation intentionally.
• Under the Russian ADR it is not open to the Panel to consider grounds for a reduced sanction.
• There had been substantial delays in the analytical process and in the results managment, which was not attributed to the Athlete.
• The Athlete is a honest, straightforward and credible witness.
• She certainly is not a cheat, nor that she cheated at the Russian 2021 National Championships, nor at the Beijing 2022 Olympic Games (or at any other time).

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 January 2024 that:

1. The Appeal filed on 14 February 2023 by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 9/2023 rendered on 24 January 2023 is upheld.
2. The Appeal filed on 20 February 2023 by the International Skating Union against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 9/2023 rendered on 24 January 2023 is upheld.
3. The Appeal filed on 21 February 2023 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 9/2023 rendered on 24 January 2023 is partially upheld.
4. The decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 9/2023 rendered on 24 January 2023 is set aside.
5. Ms Kamila Valieva is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Clause 4.1 of the All-Russian Anti-Doping Rules of 24 June 2021.
6. A period of four (4) years ineligibility is imposed on Ms Kamila Valieva, starting on 25 December 2021. Any period of provisional suspension served by Ms Kamila Valieva shall be credited against the period of ineligibility imposed.
7. All competitive results of Ms Kamila Valieva from 25 December 2021 are disqualified, with all the resulting consequences (including forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, profits, prizes, and appearance money).
8. (…)
9. (…).
10. (…).
11. (…).
12. (…).
13. (…)
14. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

, to sanction the Athlete for 4 years

The Athlete in her defence argued that:

• The source of the inadvertent contamination has been established by the DADC after careful analysis, in connection with her interacton with her grandfather, who regularly takes the medicine Trimetazidine.
• The DADC correctly had acknowledged that the Athlete is a Protected Person due to her age;
• The DADC accepted that the Athlete would not have any competitive advantages by consuming the Trimetazidine based on the medical experts' testimonies.
• Under the Rules the conditions are met in order to lift the Provisional Suspension.

RUSADA contended that the analysis in the Stockholm Lab was delayed due to pandemic-related staff shortages and is confident that the Athlete will be able to complete her submission with respect of evidenc in the proceedings before CAS whereas she has a lesser burden of proof as a Protected Person.

The ROC asserted that in the present case concrete evidence showing the source of the contamination is not required (as the Athlete is a Protected Person) and are not available (due to the undue delay in the reporting of the adverse analytical finding by the Anti-Doping Laboratory). As a result the Panel must rely on circumstantial evidence and decide to confirm the Appealed Decision if the scenario submitted by the Athlete with regard to contamination with the Prohibited Substance is more likely that the different scenario of a voluntary ingestion.

The CAS Ad Hoc Panel holds that it is uncontested that the Athlete is clearly a Protected Person under the Russian ADR and that the WADC 2021 intends to give special treatment to the Protected Persons like the Athlete.

The Panel finds that in cases involving Protected Persons, their Provisional Suspensions should be evaluated as optional Provisional Suspensions under WADC 2021 Article 7.4.2 and its progeny.

The Panel determines that the Athlete was entitled to benefit from being subject to an optional Provisional Suspension as a Protected Person and that, under the facts and circumstances, the option not to impose a Provisional Suspension should have been exercised so that she would not be prevented to compete in the Games.

Further the Panel considers in this case:

• the length of time it took for the laboratory to submit its report of an AAF involving the Athlete;
• the timing of that relative to the conduct of the Women’s Single Skating event at the Games;
• the difficulty to be faced in the Athlete not being able in
  the current situation, right in the middle of the Games, to muster proof to support her defence of the ADRV being asserted against her;
• the relatively low level of the prohibited substance found
  in her sample;
• the fact that she has tested negative in multiple tests before;
• after the test in question the case she has attempted to muster on contamination whether in a product or through domestic contamination, and the likely low level of sanction
  she will face if found to have committed an ADRV.

The Panel deems that athletes should not be subject to the risk of serious harm occasioned by anti-doping authorities’ failure to function effectively at a high level of performance and in a manner designed to protect the integrity of the operation of the Games. Accordingly the Panel finds that the Provisional Suspension should remain lifted.

Therefore the CAS Ad Hoc Division decides on 17 February 2022:

1. The Ad Hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction to determine the Applications filed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and International Skating Union (ISU).
2. The Applications filed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and International Skating Union (ISU) are dismissed.

CAS 2023/O/9505 World Athletics v. Russian Athletic Federation & Ms. Ekaterina Guliyev

Related case:

CAS 2016_A_4486 IAAF vs Ekaterina Poistogova
April 7, 2017

Ms Ekaterina Guliyev (born Zavyalova, divorced Poistogova) is a Turkish international-level athlete who represented Russia until 2021, inter alia, at the 2012 London Olympic Garnes, where she won the silver medal in the 800 meters competition.

Previously the Athlete was sanctioned on 7 April 2017 for 2 years by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for the use of the prohibited substances Erythropoietin (EPO) and Oxandrolone.

---

In 2016, Professor Richard McLaren issued two reports about systemic doping in Russia. These reports identified a significant number of Russian athletes who were involved in, or benefitted from, the doping schemes and practices that he uncovered.

Hereafter in January 2019 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) recovered the internal database of the Moscow Laboratory (LIMS). Following investigation of allegations of organized doping practices, and in particular of the LIMS, WADA provided international federations with investigation reports on the athletes implicated in these organized doping practices.

These investigation reports revealed that the prohibited substances Androstatrienedione, Boldenone and Prasterone (dehydroepiandrosterone, DHEA) with a high T/E ratio had been established in the 2 samples of the Athlete Ekaterine Guliyev provided in July 2012 .

Consequently in July 2022 World Athletics reported new anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for the use of these prohibited substances. In March 2023 World Athletics referred the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that two official samples were listed in the London Washout Schedules as belonging to the Athlete, which would date from 17 July 2012 and 25 July 2012. This would prove that the Athlete was part of a doping programme.

In this regard, in accordance with the information contained in this schedule, in the leadup to the 2012 London Olympic Games, the Athlete would have been using up to three prohibited substances. Furthermore two unofficial samples of the Athlete were listed in the Moscow Washout Schedules from July-August 2013.

RusAF did not submit an answer or any other written submissions containing requests for relief.

The Athlete invoked the principle of res judicata and asserted that this is a revision of her previous case. Further she disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by WADA, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov.

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

• The Athlete's res judicata argument is dismissed.
• The Athlete's samples provided on 17 July 2012 and on 25 July is evidence of the Athlete's use of prohibited substances.
• Accordingly the Athlete committed multiple anti-doping rule violations and these shall be considered as one single violation.
• The 2 year period of ineligibility imposed on the Athlete on 7 April 2017 must be credited against any period of ineligibility to be imposed in this case.
• The Athlete was part of a sophisticated doping scheme, namely the washout testing program in advance of the 2012 London Olympic Games.
• There are aggravating circumstances present in this case that justify the imposition of the maximum sanction allowed.
• Fairness requires that the Athlete's results are disqualified from 17 July 2012 to 20 October 2014.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 28 March 2024 that:

1.) The Request for Arbitration filed on 16 March 2023 by World Athletics against the Russian Athletics Federation and Ms. Ekaterina Guliyev (born Zavyalova, divorced Poistogova) is partially upheld.

2.) Ms. Ekaterina Guliyev (born Zavyalova, divorced Poistogova) is found guilty of an antidoping rule violation under Rule 32.2(b) of the IAAF Competition Rules 2012-2013.

3.) Ms. Ekaterina Guliyev (born Zavyalova, divorced Poistogova) is sanctioned with a Period of Ineligibility of four (4) years starting from the date of this Award, with credit to be
given for the two -year period oflneligibility imposed on her in the Final Award in CAS 2016/A/4486 IAAF v. Ekaterina Poistogova, which was already served.

4.) All the competitive results obtained by Ms. Ekaterina Guliyev (born Zavyalova, divorced Poistogova) from 17 July 2012 until 20 October 2014 are disqualified, with all the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served separately to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne 90% jointly by the Russian Athletics Federation and Ms. Ekaterina Guliyev (born Zavyalova, divorced Poistogova) and 10% by World Athletics.

6.) The Russian Athletics Federation and Ms. Ekaterina Guliyev (born Zavyalova, divorced Poistogova) shall jointly pay an amount of CHF 4,000 (four thousand Swiss Francs) to World Athletics as contribution to its legal costs and other expenses incurred in the present proceedings.

7.) All other and further requests of reliefs are dismissed.

CAS 2023/O/9505 World Athletics v. Russian Athletic Federation & Mr. Nikolay Chavkin

In 2016, Professor Richard McLaren issued two reports about systemic doping in Russia. These reports identified a significant number of Russian athletes who were involved in, or benefitted from, the doping schemes and practices that he uncovered.

Hereafter in January 2019 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) recovered the internal database of the Moscow Laboratory (LIMS). Following investigation of allegations of organized doping practices, and in particular of the LIMS, WADA provided international federations with investigation reports on the athletes implicated in these organized doping practices.

These investigation reports revealed that the prohibited substance Methyltestosterone had been established in the 2 samples of the Athlete Nikolay Chavkin provided in July 2012.

Consequently in June 2022 World Athletics reported anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for the use of this prohibited substance. In March 2023 World Athletics referred the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that two official samples were listed in the London Washout Schedules as belonging to the Athlete, which would date from 4 July 2012 and 17 July 2012. This would prove that the Athlete was part of a doping programme.

In this regard, in accordance with the information contained in these schedules, in the leadup to the 2012 London Olympic Games, the Athlete had used a prohibited substance.

RusAF did not submit an answer or any other written submissions containing requests for relief.

The Athlete denied that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation and asserted that he had been tested before without issues. Further he disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by WADA, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov.

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

• The Athlete's samples provided on 4 July 2012 and on 17 July 2012 is evidence of the Athlete's use of a prohibited substance.
• Accordingly the Athlete committed multiple anti-doping rule violations and these shall be considered as one single violation.
• The Athlete was part of a sophisticated doping scheme, namely the washout testing program in advance of the 2012 London Olympic Games.
• There is no evidence that the Athlete was knowingly involved in the Russian doping scheme.
• There are aggravating circumstances present in this case that justify the imposition of a more severe sanction.
• Fairness requires that the Athlete's results are disqualified from 4 July 2012 to 3 January 2015.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 March 2024 that:

1.) The Request for Arbitration filed by World Athletics against the Russian Athletics Federation and Mr. Nikolay Chavkin is partially upheld.

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

3.) Mr. Nikolay Chavkin is sanctioned with a Period of Ineligibility of two (2) years and six (6) months starting from the date of this Award.

4.) All the competitive results obtained by Mr. Nikolay Chavkin from 4 July 2012 until 3 January 2015 are disqualified, with all the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served separately to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne 90% jointly by the Russian Athletics Federation and Mr. Nikolay Chavkin and 10% by World Athletics.

6.) The Russian Athletics Federation and Mr. Nikolay Chavkin shall jointly pay an amount of CHF 4,000 (four thousand Swiss Francs) to World Athletics as contribution to its legal costs and other expenses incurred in the present proceedings.

7.) All other and further requests of reliefs are dismissed.