CAS anti-doping Division (OG PyeongChang) AD 18/005 International Olympic Committee (IOC) & International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (FIBT) v. Nadezhda Sergeeva, partial award

Related document:

IBSF 2018 IBSF vs Nadezhda Sergeeva - Termination of proceedings
October 11, 2018

• Bobsleigh
• Doping (trimetazidine)
• Jurisdiction of the CAS Anti-Doping Division
• Definition of team sport
• Consequences on the team of an ADRV in a sport which is not a team sport but where awards are given to teams
• Continuation of the proceedings

1. Pursuant to Rule 59.2.4 of the Olympic Charter, the IOC Executive Board has delegated to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (ADD) its power to decide upon any violation of the World Anti-Doping Code arising upon the occasion of the Olympic Games. Pursuant to Art. 8.1.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules (ADR): “Where the IOC decides to assert an anti-doping rule violation, the IOC shall promptly file an application with the CAS Anti-Doping Division as per the CAS Anti-Doping Rules”. Article 1 of the CAS ADD Rules states that: “[t]he CAS ADD shall be the first-instance authority to conduct proceedings and to issue decisions when an alleged anti-doping rule violation has been asserted and referred to it under the IOC ADR, and for imposition of any sanctions therefrom whether applied at the Games or thereafter. Accordingly, the CAS ADD has jurisdiction to rule as a first-instance authority in place of the IOC and/or the International Federation concerned”.

2. The IOC ADR defines a Team Sport as “A sport in which the substitution of players is permitted during Competition”. As substitution of athletes is not permitted in bobsleigh competitions, it is not a team sport.

3. Article 11.3 of the IOC ADR states that: “If one or more members of a team in a sport which is not a Team Sport but where awards are given to teams, is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation […], the CAS Anti-Doping Division shall impose the consequences on the team […] which are provided in this respect in the applicable rules of the relevant International Federation, in addition to any consequences imposed pursuant to these Rules on the individual Athlete(s) found to have committed the anti-doping rule violation”. According to Article 11.2.2 of the IBSF ADR, “An anti-doping rule violation committed by a member of a Team occurring during or in connection with an Event may lead to Disqualification of all of the results obtained by the Team in that Event”, which gives discretion to determine whether the results of the athlete’s team are also disqualified.

4. After the anti-doping rule violation has been determined, the IOC is no longer a party to the procedure. The proceedings shall continue by and between the international federation concerned, who joined the proceedings as Co-Applicant, and the athlete, in regard to the consequences of the anti-doping rule violation which may be imposed on the athlete. The Sole Arbitrator, after consultation with the parties, shall determine the procedural directions applicable to the remaining part of the arbitration and shall issue, at the conclusion of the proceedings following the Olympic Games, a final award, all in accordance with Article 20 of the CAS ADD Rules.

On 23 February 2018 the International Olympic Committee had reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian bossleigh Athlete Nadezhda Sergeeva after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Trimetazidine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS ADD). The International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF) joined the procedure as a Co-Applicant.

The Athlete accepted the test results and the consequences including disqualification of results. The Athlete did not make any arguments nor presented any reasons why the results of her Team should not be disqualified as a result of her anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole arbitrator finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete’s samples and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. On the basis of the submissions of the parties, the application of the IOC is granted.

Therefore the CAS Anti-Doping Division decides on 24 February 2018:

a.) The Athlete is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.1 of the IOC ADR.
b.) The individual results obtained by the Athlete in the women’s bobsleigh event of the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018 are disqualified with all resulting consequences including, if applicable, forfeiture of any medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes.
c.) The results obtained by the Athlete’s Team in the women’s bobsleigh event of the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018 are disqualified with all resulting consequences including, if applicable, forfeiture of any medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes.
d.) The Athlete is excluded from the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018.
e.) To the extent not yet done so, the Athlete shall leave the Village and return her accreditation (number 3036191) immediately.

With the issuance of this Order, the IOC’s participation in this proceeding is hereby terminated. Furthermore, the application of the IBSF is granted and therefore:

a.) The Athlete is provisionally suspended from all Competition following the conclusion of the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018 pending a final decision on her violation.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG PyeongChang) AD 18/004 International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) v. Ziga Jeglic

• Ice hockey
• Doping (fenoterol)
• Determination of the sanction in case of absence of intent
• No Fault
• Non-Significant Fault
• Assessment of the degree of fault and reduction of the period of ineligibility

1. In case the Anti-Doping Organization cannot establish that the violation was intentional or confirms that the violation was not intentional, pursuant to Article 7.2.2 of the IIHF Disciplinary Code and Article 10.2.2 of the WADC, the period of ineligibility shall be two years instead of four years. This two-year period of ineligibility may be subject to a potential reduction under Article 7.4 or Article 7.5 of the IIHF Disciplinary Code and Article 10.4 or Article 10.5 of the WADC i.e. in case of No Fault or Negligence or No Significant Fault or Negligence from the athlete.

2. For No Fault, an athlete must exercise “utmost caution”, i.e. he or she must take every conceivable effort that no prohibited substance enters his/her body. An athlete who knew or could have reasonably known that the asthma medication used by him/her immediately before a match contained or may have contained a prohibited substance and relied on his/her doctor’s advice and confirmation did not exercise utmost caution and does not qualify for the application of No Fault or Negligence. In any event, even if the athlete acted reasonably in relying on his/her doctor, the doctor’s negligence is imputed to the athlete.

3. In order to benefit from a reduction of the period of ineligibility based on No Significant Fault or Negligence, the athlete needs to establish to the satisfaction of the panel how the Prohibited Substance entered his/her system.

4. In order to determine the degree of fault in an individual case, CAS jurisprudence distinguishes between “significant”, “normal”, and “light” degrees of fault and allocates a time span to each of those categories. Moreover, with respect to the determination of the sanction, an “objective” and a “subjective” level of fault must be taken into consideration. The objective level of fault or negligence points to “what standard of care could have been expected from a reasonable person in the athlete’s situation” and the subjective level consists of “what could have been expected from that particular athlete, in the light of his particular capacities”. The objective elements should be “foremost in determining” the category of fault.

On 20 February 2018 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reported during the PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Winter Games an anti-doping rule violation against the Slovenian ice hockey player Ziga Jeglic after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Fenoterol. The International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) filed an application to join the procedure as a Co-Applicant.

On 22 February 2018 the Sole Arbitrator of the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS ADD) ruled in his Partial Award that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. He confirmed the IIHF as Co-Applicant and the IOC was dismissed from the procedure.

The Athlete admitted the violation and explained he had had asthma attacks for years and used asthma inhalator prescribed by a doctor. A Berodual asthma inhalator was administered to the Athlete by the doctor of the Slovenian national team while he was unaware whether he was using a Ventolin or a Berodual inhalator. He was explicitly advised his team doctor that the use of the inhalator for two puffs twice a day would not cause an anti-doping violation. He used the inhalator occasionally when absolutely necessary, he was unaware that he had to apply for a TUE, nor did he mention the use of the Berodual on the Doping Control Form.

The IIHF accepts that the violation was not intentional, that the Athlete demonstrated how the substance entered his system and established No Significant Fault or Negligence for imposing a reduced sanction. The IIHF contended that the Athlete had acted with a light degree of fault and requested the Panel to impose an 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the provisional suspension.

The IIHF has no reason to contest the Athlete’s explanation that the prohibited substance entered his system as a consequence of using a Berodual asthma inhalator prior to the game against the Olympic Athletes from Russia. Considering the evidence it is clear that the Athlete was unaware whether he was using a Ventolin or Berodual inhalator for his asthma, nor that Berodual contained the prohibited substance Fenoterol.

The Sole Arbitrator accepts that the violation was not intentional, that the Athlete demonstrated how the prohibited substance entered his system and established No Significant Fault or Negligence considering his light degree of fault.

Therefore the CAS Anti-Doping Division decides on 9 August 2018:

1.) The application of the IIHF is granted and therefore:
- a.) Mr Ziga Jeglic is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of eight (8) months commencing on the date of this Award on Sanctions.
- b.) Mr Ziga Jeglic is credited the period of provisional/voluntary suspension already served as from 20 February 2018 and through the date of this Award on Sanctions.
2.) (…).
3.) (…).
4.) All other or further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG PyeongChang) AD 18/003 World Curling Federation (WCF) v. Aleksandr Krushelnickii

Related case:

CAS OG_AD_2018_03 IOC vs Aleksandr Krushelnitckii - Partial Award
February 22, 2018

• Curling
• Doping (meldonium)
• Burden and standard of proof
• Admissibility of polygraph test results and expert opinion in relation to such results
• Principles applicable to the source of the prohibited substance
• Establishment of the source of the prohibited substance as proof of absence of intent
• Sabotage

1. According to Article 3.1 of the WCF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR), WCF shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether WCF has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. The standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where these anti-doping rules place the burden of proof upon the athlete alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified acts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability.

2. Where there is no challenge to the conduct of a polygraph test or the expertise of the tester, the evidence should be admitted and taken into account knowing that it rises no higher than adding some force to the athlete’s declaration of innocence but not supplanting the need to carefully consider all other evidence in the case in determining whether the burden of proof has been discharged.

3. It is for an athlete to establish the source of the prohibited substance, not for the anti-doping organization to prove an alternative source to that contended for by the athlete. An athlete has to do so on the balance of probabilities. Evidence establishing that a scenario is possible is not enough to establish the origin of the prohibited substance. An athlete must do so with evidence, not speculation. It is insufficient for an athlete to deny deliberate ingestion of a prohibited substance and, accordingly, to assert that there must be an innocent explanation for its presence in his system. If there are two competing explanations for the presence of the prohibited substance, the rejection of one does not oblige (though it may permit) the hearing body to opt for the other. The conclusion that the other is not proven is always available to the hearing body. In such a situation there are three choices, not just two, for the hearing body.

4. Establishment of the source of the prohibited substance in a sample is not mandated in order to prove an absence of intent. However, the likelihood of finding lack of intent in the absence of proof of source would be extremely rare, and if an athlete cannot prove source it leaves the narrowest of corridors through which the athlete must pass to discharge the burden which lies upon him.

5. The threshold for establishing sabotage as the reason for an ADRV is very high. Any proposed sabotage theory must be supported by reliable and credible evidence, not speculation or assertions of absence of motive. It is insufficient for an athlete to simply raise a hypothesis of sabotage without corroborating evidence and then to simply declare that sabotage is the only possible explanation.

Mr Aleksandr Krushelnitckii is a Russian Athlete competing in the Curling events at the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Winter Games.

On 18 February 2018 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples - provided on 12 and 13 February 2018 - tested positive for the prohibited susbstance Meldonium.

Following notification the Athlete accepted the test results and requested to be heard for the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel (CAS ADD). The World Curling Federation (WCF) requested the Panel to order a provisional suspension beyond the period of the Games.

In a Partial Award the CAS ADD decided on 22 February 2018 to exclude the Athlete from the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Winter Games and to disqualify his obtained results in the Mixed Doubles Curling event at the Olympic Winter Games.

Hereafter the WCF requested the Sole Arbitrator to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. 

Supported by expert witnesses the Athlete argued that the only possible explanation for the presence of Meldonium in his urine samples is that the Meldonium was somehow added into his food or drink after he arrived in the Olympic Village, without his knowledge or involvement. So likely he was the victim of sabotage and should not be suspended at all in accordance with Article 10.4 of the WCF ADR.

In this procedure the Sole Arbitrator addressed the following issues:

• As it has been established that an ADRV has occurred under Article 2.1 WCF ADR, has the Athlete established that the ADRV was not intentional under Article 10.2.1.1?
• Has the athlete established that he bears no fault or negligence under Article 10.4 WCF ADR?
• Has the Athlete established that he bears no significant fault or negligence under Article 10.5.1 WCF ADR?
• Has the athlete established that the mandatory period of ineligibility of four years should be reduced by reason of Prompt Admission under article 10.6.3, or by reason of the principle of proportionality?
• What is the quantum of any sanction that should be imposed?
• What is the commencement date of any period of ineligibility pursuant to Article 10.11 WCF ADR?

The Sole Arbitrator concludes:

• The Athlete has not established that the ADRV was not intentional under Article 10.2.1 WCF ADR.
• The Athlete has not established the source of the Prohibited Substance and is not entitled to elimination or reduction of the period of ineligibility under Article 10.4 or Article 10.5 WCF ADR.
• The Athlete has not established an entitlement to reduction of a period of ineligibility under Article 10.6.3 WCF ADR.
• The Athlete has not established that there should be any reduction in a period of ineligibility on the basis of the proportionality principle.

Therefore the CAS Anti-doping Division decides on 3 December 2018:

1.) The application of the World Curling Federation is granted and therefore, Mr Aleksandr Krushelnickii is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four years commencing on the date of his voluntary provisional suspension (i.e. 12 February 2018).

2.) The present award is rendered free of charge.

3.) (…).

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

CAS anti-doping Division (OG PyeongChang) AD 18/003 International Olympic Committee (IOC) & World Curling Federation (WCF) v. Aleksandr Krushelnitckii, partial award of 22 February 2018

Related case:

CAS OG_AD_2018_03 WCF vs Aleksandr Krushelnitckii
December 3, 2018

• Curling
• Doping (meldonium)
• Jurisdiction of the CAS Anti-Doping Division
• Continuation of the proceedings

1. Pursuant to Rule 59.2.4 of the Olympic Charter, the IOC Executive Board has delegated to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (ADD) its power to decide upon any violation of the World Anti-Doping Code arising upon the occasion of the Olympic Games. Pursuant to Art. 8.1.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules (ADR): “Where the IOC decides to assert an anti-doping rule violation, the IOC shall promptly file an application with the CAS Anti-Doping Division as per the CAS Anti-Doping Rules”. Article 1 of the CAS ADD Rules states that: “[t]he CAS ADD shall be the first-instance authority to conduct proceedings and to issue decisions when an alleged anti-doping rule violation has been asserted and referred to it under the IOC ADR, and for imposition of any sanctions therefrom whether applied at the Games or thereafter. Accordingly, the CAS ADD has jurisdiction to rule as a first-instance authority in place of the IOC and/or the International Federation concerned”.

2. After the anti-doping rule violation has been determined, the IOC is no longer a party to the procedure. The proceedings shall continue by and between the international federation concerned, who joined the proceedings as Co-Applicant, and the athlete, in regard to the consequences of the anti-doping rule violation which may be imposed on the athlete. The Sole Arbitrator, after consultation with the parties, shall determine the procedural directions applicable to the remaining part of the arbitration and shall issue, at the conclusion of the proceedings following the Olympic Games, a final award, all in accordance with Article 20 of the CAS ADD Rules.

Mr Aleksandr Krushelnitckii is a Russian Athlete competing in the Curling events at the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Winter Games.

On 18 February 2018 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples - provided on 12 and 13 February 2018 - tested positive for the prohibited susbstance Meldonium.

After notification the Athlete admitted the violation and requested to be heard for the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel (CAS ADD). The World Curling Federation requested the Panel to order a provisional suspension beyond the period of the Games.

On 22 February 2018 the Athlete re-confirmed his admission of the violation, accepted a provisional suspension beyond the period of the Games, and reserved all rights accordingly to seek the elimination or reduction of any period of ineligibility based on “No Fault or Negligence” following the conclusion of the Games.
The CAS ADD accepted the parties' respective positions and cancelled the hearing.

The Athlete expressly accepts the adverse analytical findings against him and therefore the Sole Arbitrator confirms the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that he is provisionally suspended until such time a final decision is rendered on his violations, or otherwise informed.

Therefore the CAS ADD Panel decides on 22 February 2018 that:

a.) The Athlete is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.1 of the IOC ADR.

b.) The individual results obtained by the Athlete in the Mixed Doubles Curling event at the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018 are disqualified with all resulting consequences including forfeiture of the medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes.

c.) The results obtained by the team of the Olympic Athletes from Russia in the Mixed Doubles Curling event at the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018 are disqualified with all resulting consequences including forfeiture of the medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes.

d.) The Athlete is excluded from the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018.

e.) To the extent not yet done so, the Athlete shall leave the Village and return his accreditation (number 3043371-01) immediately.

CAS ADD 18/01 International Skating Union (ISU) v. Kei Saito
Termination Order

Mr Ken Saito is a Japanesese Athlete competing in the Short Track Speed Skater event at the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Winter Games.

In a Partial Award the Sole Arbitrator of the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel (CAS ADD) decided on 20 September 2018 that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Acetazolamide as reported by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). In this case the procedure with the IOC ended, but the procedure continued between the International Skating Union (ISU) and the Athlete.

Hereafter in October 2018 the Athlete appealed the CAS ADD Partial Award with the CAS Appeal Arbitration Division which was considered inadmissible and dismissed on 14 November 2018.
The procedure with the ISU in the CAS ADD case against the Athlete was reassumed.

In December 2018 the Athlete filed evidence in his defence demonstrating that positive test was the result of a contaminated product. ISU accepted this evidence and deems that the Athlete established no significant, but only a light degree of fault or negligence for the anti-doping rule violation. The ISU imposed only a reprimand as adequate and proportionate sanction which was accepted by the Athlete.

A settlement was reached between the Parties in this case and the CAS ADD was informed by the ISU on 15 January 2019 that the ISU withdrew it claims in this procedure.

Therefore the Sole Arbitrator of the CAS Anti-Doping Division decides on 29 January 2019 that:

1.) The procedure CAS ADD 18/01 International Skating Union (ISU) v. Kei Saito is terminated.
2.) The present Award is rendered without costs.

CAS AD 16/11 International Olympic Committee v. Misha Aloian

Related case:
CAS 2017_A_4927 Misha Aloyan vs IOC
June 16, 2017

Mr. Misha Aloian is a Russian Athlete competing in the Men’s -52kg boxing event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 7 September 2016 the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance tuaminoheptane. After notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the CAS Anti-Doping Division in November 2016.

The Athlete argued that he bears no fault or negligence and that the amount of substance found in his body did not have a performance enhancing effect. The Athlete asserted that he had used the medication Rhinofluimucil out-of-competition on the advice of his team doctor and that the was advised inaccurately by his doctor.

On the balance of probability the Sole Arbitrator accepts the Athlete’s explanation that he used for his chronic disease a medication containing a prohibited substance on the advice of his team doctor.
However the Sole Arbitrator rules that the Athlete failed in his personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enerters his body.

Therefore the CAS Anti-Doping Division Sole Arbitrator decides on 8 December 2016:

1.) The Athlete is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.1 of the IOC ADR.
2.) The results obtained by the Athlete in the Men’s -52kg boxing event at the Olympic Games Rio 2016, in which he finished 2nd and for which he was awarded a Silver medal, are disqualified with all consequences, including forfeiture of the medal, Olympic diploma and medallist pin.
3.) The Athlete is ordered to return the medal, the diploma and the medallist pin.
4.) The International Boxing Association 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 is requested to ensure full implementation of this decision and secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the medal, the medallist pin and the diploma awarded in connection with the Men’s -52kg boxing event.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/010 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Gabriel Sincraian

Related case:

IOC 2019 IOC vs Gabriel Sincraian
November 23, 2020

Mr. Gabriel Sincraian is a Romanian Athlete competing in the 85 kg Weightlifting event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 12 August 2016 the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete did not respond nor did he file a statement in his defence hereafter.

In November 2016 the CAS Sole Arbitrator finds that the IOC met its burden of proof under Art. 3.1 IOC ADR. The documents adduced by the IOC establish sufficient proof, to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator, that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation under Art. 2 IOC ADR.

Therefore the CAS Anti-Doping Division Sole Arbitrator decides on 8 December 2016:

1.) The Application filed by the IOC is admissible.

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

3.) All results obtained by the Athlete in the Olympic Games Rio 2016, including the bronze medal in the Men’s Weightlifting 85 kg event, are disqualified with all consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, diplomas, pins, points and prizes.

4.) The National Olympic Committee of Romania is requested to secure the return to the IOC of the medal, medallist pin, and diploma given to the Athlete.

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

With respect to item 4 of previous paragraph, the Sole Arbitrator notes that the National Olympic Committee of Romania is not a party to these proceedings and susceptible to an order made by him. However, the duty to make the return of the items sought by the IOC lies first with the Athlete. The assistance of the NOC is part of its general duty of collaboration with the IOC.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/009 & 013 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Qian Chen

• Modern Pentathlon
• Doping (hydrochlorothiazide)
• Automatic disqualification based on Art. 9 IOC ADR
• Proportionality of the disqualification

1. Art. 9 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) clearly states that an anti-doping rule violation in connection with an in-competition test automatically leads to disqualification of the result obtained in the competition in question. No flexibility is provided at all. The automatic disqualification pursuant to this article is nothing but the objective consequence of an objective fact, i.e. the adverse analytical finding. It is an application of a condition of ineligibility retroactively assessed. The aforementioned condition implies that the athlete cannot validly and legitimately compete in a competition of an individual sport during the Olympic Games if a prohibited substance is present in his or her body irrespective of whether the source of that presence can in anyway be linked to a fault or negligence of the athlete and/or irrespective of any effect that substance may have had on his or her performance or not.

2. Within the framework of Art. 9 IOC ADR, and as part of the anti-doping system and the need of the fight against doping in sports, the issue of proportionality has already been taken into account. Indeed, within this system the possibility exists that an athlete who bears no fault or negligence, nor she or he had a known intention to enhance the sportive performance will be automatically disqualified for an established anti-doping rule violation in connection with an in-competition test. However, it is not a question of culpability, but a consequence of circumstances in which an athlete did not meet the equal standards applicable to all the participants in the competition. The mere participation of the athlete in a competition while a prohibited substance was present in his or her body by itself establishes a situation of non-equality between him or her and the other participants in the competition, regardless of the question of culpability or intention.

Ms. Qian Chen is a Chinese Athlete competing in the Women’s Modern Pentathlon event at the 2016 Rio Olympic Games.

On 20 August 2016 and on 30 September 2016 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reported 2 anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete after her A and B samples - provided on 17 August and on 19 August 2016 - tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide. Following notification the IOC filed an application with the CAS Anti-Doping Division and both cases were consolidated.

The Athlete accepted the test results, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested to uphold her results at the Games. She demonstrated with reports issued by two Chinese Labs that contaminated fruit sugar tablets were the source of the positive tests.

The IOC requested the Sole Arbitrator to exclude the Athlete from the 2016 Rio Olympic Games and to disqualify her results because of the 2 anti-doping rule violation she had committed. Further the IOC contended that the findings in the Chinese Lab reports were erroneous.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. Under the IOC ADR disqualification of the Athlete's results is an automatic consequence of an anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the submissions of the Athlete in respect of the possible source and the possible explanation for the existence of the prohibited substance in her body are irrelevant to the case at hand, however will be examined thoroughly and dealt with by her International Federation in the process of the result management in terms of sanctions beyond the Games.

Therefore the Sole Arbitrator decides on 6 April 2017:

1.) The application CAS AD 16/09 is deemed withdrawn.

2.) The application CAS AD 16/13 is granted.

3.) The Athlete is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.1 of the IOC ADR.

4.) The results obtained by the Athlete in the Women’s Modern Pentathlon event at the Olympic Games Rio 2016, in which she finished 4th, are disqualified with all consequences, including forfeiture of her Olympic diploma.

5.) The Athlete is ordered to return her diploma.

6.) The Union Internationale de Pentathlon Moderne is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.