CAS A1/2020 Shayna Jack v. Swimming Australia & Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority

Related cases:

• CAS 2020_A_7579 WADA vs Swimming Australia & SIA & Shayna Jack; and
• CAS 2020_A_7580 SIA vs Shayna Jack & Swimming Australia
  September 16, 2021

In July 2019 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the swimmer Shayna Jack after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance LGD-4033 (Ligandrol). Consequently the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel decided on 19 December 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. 

Hereafter in January 2020 the Athlete appealed the Decision of 19 December 2019 with the Oceania Registry Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). 

ASADA contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the prohibited substance entered her system and that there are nog grounds for a reduced sanction. It acknowledged that there was no evidence that the Athlete intentionally had used the substance to enhance performance nor was there evidence of long-term use of the substance. 

The Athlete accepted that she committed an anti-doping rule violation and denied the intentional use of the prohibited substance. She acknowledged that she did not know how the substance entered her system. She could only provide possible explantions: contaminated supplements; contamination through mixing supplements in a blender used by other persons; and contact or ingestion of the substance at training facilities she had visited. 

The Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete could not demonstrate how the prohibited substance entered her system but is willing to accept that the violation was not intentional.

Based on the Athlete’s evidence and presentation and the evidence and presentations of those who know her best, the Athlete presented to the Sole Arbitrator as a person who was inherently very unlikely to intentionally or recklessly ingest a Prohibited Substance. The history of testing is also consistent with the Athlete’s evidence of a lack of intention to cheat. Futher the found concentration of the prohibited substance in her sample was low and insufficient to enhance performance. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 November 2020 that: 

1.) The appeal filed by Ms. Shayna Jack on 2 January 2020 is partly upheld.

2.) Ms. Shayna Jack has committed a violation of Article 2.1 the Swimming Australia Limited Anti-Doping Policy 2015 and as a result, is suspended for a period of two (2) years commencing as from the date of her provisional suspensions (i.e. 12 July 2019).

3.) (…).

4.) (…).

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

CAS A1/2013 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority vs. Jarrod Bannister

In March 2013 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Jarrod Bannister for his Whereabouts Filing Failures and 3 Missed Tests.

The Athlete admitted the violation, however he disputed that his Whereabouts Filing Failure on 31 July 2012 was inexcusable.

In this matter the Athlete failed to report the room number where he stayed in the hotel in Cologne, Germany. As a result the Doping Control Officer (DCO) couldn't locate the Athlete. Due to the hotel used the system of shared rooms only the first person was recorded and not the second. The Athlete was the second person and therefore not registered by the hotel. Furthermore the DCO was told by the receptionist that the Athlete allready had checked out.

In view of the circumstances in this case the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Whereabouts Filing Failure and Missed Test of 31 July 2012 was to some extent excusable. Although the Athlete acted with a significant degree of fault the Sole Arbitratior deems that there are grounds for a more reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 July 2013 that:

1.) The Athlete has breached Article 6.4 of the Athletics Australia Anti-Doping Policy.

2.) That the Athlete's period of ineligibility in respect of that breach be one of twenty months commencing on 19 June 2013 and finishing at midnight on 18 February 2015.

3. That, in accordance with Article 17.5.3 of the Athletics Australia Anti-Doping Policy, each party shall bear in equal proportions the CAS fee and shall otherwise bear their own costs of this proceeding.

CAS (Oceania Registry) A1/2009 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) c. Peter Atkins

Surfing
Doping (stanozolol)
Athlete’s knowledge of the prohibition against the taking of performance enhancing drugs in sport
Failure of an athlete to give evidence before the CAS
Clarity of the rules and predictability of sanctions

1. The fight against doping in sport has a long and public history in Australia and throughout the world. An athlete who is an elite national competitor in his sport, a man of 33 years of age and a competitor in the sport for many years, would know of the prohibition against the taking of performance enhancing drugs in sport. An inference can clearly be drawn as to such knowledge from the fact that on the doping control test form signed by him he made no mention of his possession and use of the prohibited substance. It is inexplicable as to why he would omit mention of the use of that substance to those completing that form or to those conducting the test if it was the case that he had no knowledge that use of the substance was contrary to the Rules of the sport.

2. The failure of an athlete to give evidence before the CAS is not of itself evidence. The athlete cannot be compelled to give evidence and his silence cannot amount to an implied admission. He is entitled to take that course and it is not evidence of either guilt or innocence. In the criminal law of Australia and in a number of other jurisdictions where the standard of proof of guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, silence on the part of an accused person cannot fill in gaps in the prosecution case. However when the failure of an accused person to give evidence is a circumstance which may bear upon the probative value of the evidence which has been given, the tribunal may take that failure into account only for the purposes of evaluating the evidence before it. A tribunal cannot, and cannot be required to, shut its eyes to the consequences of exercising the right not to give evidence in a case where assertions are made as to a state of knowledge or lack of knowledge on the part of an athlete.

3. Clarity and predictability are required so that the entire sport community are informed of the normative system in which they live, work and compete, which requires at the very least that they be able to understand the meaning of rules and the circumstances in which those rules apply. Therefore, if, when analysing different sets of rules, the interpretation of “individual sport” and “team sport” does not allow to clarify these definitions with a view of deciding whether or not the other members of a boat crew in which one member tested positive should also be sanctioned, the boat crew results should not be annulled.

In June 2009 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
The Athlete elected to have the matter referred to a hearing by CAS who is given jurisdiction under the Anti-Doping Policy (ADP) of Surf Life Saving Australia (SLSA) to determine if a violation of the ADP has occurred.

The Sole Arbitrator CAS Panel has to rule about three issues:
a.) The jurisdictional issue – whether Mr. Atkins is bound by the Anti-Doping Policy (ADP) of SLSA;
b.) Whether, if Mr. Atkins was bound by the ADP, he committed Anti-Doping Rule Violations (the substantive dispute); and
c.) Whether, if Mr. Atkins committed Anti-Doping Rule Violations this had the effect of annulling the result of the Currumbin Barbarians Surf Lifesaving Club Men’s Open Surf Boat Team in the 2009 Australian Championships race (the sanction issue).

On 4 November 2009 the Court of Arbitration for Sports decides:

1.) The Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction to determine the substantive dispute by Arbitration.
2.) Peter Atkins is found to have committed two Anti-Doping Rule Violations in breach of Clause 7 of the Anti-Doping Policy of Surf Lifesaving Australia and Article 2 of the World Anti-Doping Code.
3.) The result obtained by Peter Atkins in the Men’s Open Surf Boat event conducted at the 2009 Australian Surf Lifesaving Championships is disqualified and any medals, points and prizes awarded to him are forfeited.
4.) Peter Atkins is ineligible to compete during the period commencing on 5 May 2009 and expiring at midnight on 4 May 2011.
5.) The result of the Currumbin Barbarians Surf Lifesaving Club Men’s Open Surf Boat Team in the 2009 Australian Championships race remains unchanged and the crew members Lyle Clark, Glen Williams, Randall Martin and Nick Parr are deemed to comprise the winning team.
(…).

CAS A1/2008 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority vs Nathan O'Neill

In March 2008 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Nathan O’Neill after his A and B samples – collected in the United States in August 2007 – tested positive for the prohibited substance Phentermine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Oceania Registry.

The Athlete admitted the use of the substance, accepted the test results and argued that there were grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence. He stated that he knew that the substance was prohibited in competition and he understood that 5 days would be more than enough time to clear this substance from his system.
Because of the positive test he was surprised that the substance could remain in his system for some 7 days.
Through research the Athlete demonstrated, sustained with evidence, that his use of phosphate tablets and bicarbonate capsules while using Phentermine effected the clearance time and consequently the Phentermine could be detected within a period of 10 days producing a positive test.

The Panel accepted the Athlete’s explanation and evidence and concludes that he established No Significant Fault or Negligence in this case for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 June 2018 that:

1.) Nathan O'Neill has breached Article 5.1 of the Anti-Doping Policy of Cycling Australia and has thereby committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation.
2.) Pursuant to Article 13.1 of the Anti-Doping Policy of Cycllng Australia, Nathan O’Neill is disqualified from his individual results obtained in the Tour of Elk Grove Event on 11 and 12 August 2007 with all consequences, incluqing forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes.
3.) Nathan O'Neill has established that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, within the meaning of Article 13.6.2 of the Anti-Doping Policy of Cycling Australla, in respect of the Violation referred to in 1 above.
4.) The period of ineligibility in respect of that Violation is reduced to a period of 15 months, commencing on 12 August 2007 and expiring at midnight on 11 November 2008.
5.) Pursuant to Article 11.10 of1he Anti-Doping Policy of Cycling Australla and clause 16 of the signed Order of Procedure herein, there be no order as to costs.

CAS A1/2007 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority vs. Sevdalin Marinov

Related case:

CAS 2007_A_1311 Sevdalin Marinov vs ASADA
September 26, 2007

On 14 November 2003 three packets each containing substances later certified to contain derivatives of prohibited substances were found by two members of the Victoria Police Force on a shelf in a wardrobe in a bedroom occupied by the Bulgarian Coach Sevdalin Marinov from August 2003 until sometime in November 2003.

Previously the Police had intercepted the car belonging to the owner of the house and found illegal drugs in his car. After the police obtained a search warrant to search the house they found great quantities of other illegal substances including the three packets in the bedroom belonging to the Coach.

Three years later in December 2006 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) reported anti-doping rule violations against the Coach for the possession and trafficking of prohibited substances in November 2003.

Thereupon in February 2007 the case was referred to the CAS Oceania Registry in February 2007 for a first instance decision.

ASADA contended that the Tribunal should be comfortably satisfied that the Coach was in continued occupation of the second bedroom in the house and the contents of the
wardrobe, from about July 2003 until he left for Canada on 12 November 2003, and knew that the three packets were in the wardrobe on the shelf during all or part of that period and
that the packets contained prohibited substances.

The Coach denied the violations and argued that there was no corroborating evidence that he was involved in possession and trafficking of prohibited subsances. He stated that at the material time that the packets were found in the wardrobe he was not longer living in that house whereas he was out of the country and had been out of the country for some time.

Following assessment of the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator determines that:

• The Coach was the sole occupier of the bedroom on the
  first floor of the house from sometime in August 2003 until
  sometime after 14 November 2003.
• There were sufficient items of his clothing and personal effects in the bedroom, including photographs of his children, to conclude that he had not moved out.
• The Coach had custody or control of the three packets on 14 November 2003 and since August 2003.
• He occupied the bedroom exclusively from August 2003.
• He had custody or control (possession) of the room and its contents in which the prohibited substances were found.
• There is no evidence that the Coach was involved in supplying, distributing, offering, selling, exchanging or brokering the prohibited substances.
• The Coach committed a doping offence of trafficking by possessing and holding prohibited substances.
• Because this is the Coach his second anti-doping rule violation a lifetime period of ineligibility shall be imposed.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 9 June 2007 that:

1.) The respondent has committed a doping offence contrary to clause 3.2(a) of the 2002 Australian Weightlifting Federation Anti-Doping Policy by being knowingly involved in trafficking constituted by his possessing and holding, in November 2003, prohibited substances, namely anabolic and androgenic steroidal agents.

2.) The respondent is, for the period of his life, banned from selection to represent Australia in international competition, from competing in any events and competitions conducted by or under the auspices of the Australian Weightlifting Federation, from receiving direct or indirect funding assistance from the Australian Weightlifting Federation and from holding any position within the Australian Weightlifting Federation.

3.) The period of ineligibility is to commence from 14 November 2003 the date of the offence.

4.) The respondent is to contribute the sum of $7000 towards the applicant’s costs to be paid within 60 days of this Award unless the parties come to an arrangement for payment to be made on terms acceptable to them.

5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined by the CAS Court Office and served on the parties in due course, shall be borne by the parties in the following proportions: 50% of the costs by the Appellant and 50% of the costs by the Respondent.

6.) This Award and the annexed Partial Awards be made public.

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.

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.

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 Enobosarm (Ostarine), Oxandrolone and Trenbolone had been established in the 2 samples of the Athlete Yelena Korobkina provided in July 2013 and in July 2014 .

Consequently in December 2021 World Athletics reported anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for the use of these prohibited substances. In January 2023 the World Athletics referred the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that one unofficial sample and one official sample were listed in the Moscow Washout Schedules as belonging to the Athlete, which would date from 31 July 2013 and 25 July 2014. 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 2013 Moscow World Championships and the 2014 European Championships, the Athlete would have been using up to three prohibited substances.

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

The Athlete denied that she had committed an anti-doping rule violation and asserted that she had been tested before without issues. 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 used prohibited substances within the Washout Testing Programme as part of a doping plan or scheme.
• The Moscow Washout Schedules are reliable with respect to the Athlete's entries and her use of prohibited substances.
• The Athlete used, in or around July 2013, Trenbolone and Ostarine.
• The Athlete used, in on around July 2014, Trenbolone and Oxandrolone.
• The Athlete violated Rule 32.2(b) of the 2012 and the 2014 IAAF Competition Rules.
• There are several aggravating circumstances in this case that justify the imposition of the maximum sanction allowed.
• Fairness requires that the Athlete's results are disqualified from 2 July 2013 to 24 July 2016.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 27 September 2023 that:

1.) The Request for Arbitration filed by World Athletics with the Court of Arbitration for Sport against the Russian Athletics Federation (RUSAF) and Ms Yelena Korobkina on 20 January 2023 is partially upheld.

2.) Ms Yelena Korobkina committed anti-doping rule violations according to Rule 32.2(b) of the 2012 and 2014 IAAF Competition Rules.

3.) Ms Yelena Korobkina is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting on the date of notification of the present award.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Ms Yelena Korobkina from 2 July 2013 through to 24 July 2016 included shall be disqualified, with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points, prizes and appearance money.

5.) The costs of this arbitration, to be determined and served upon the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the Russian Athletics Federation in their entirety.

6.) The Russian Athletics Federation and Ms Yelena Korobkina shall each bear their own costs and the Russian Athletics Federation is ordered to pay to World Athletics the amount of CHF 5,000 (five thousand Swiss Francs) as a contribution towards World Athletics' legal fees and expenses incurred in relation to the present proceedings.

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