CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/008 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Chagnaadorj Usukhbayar

Mr. Chagnaadorj Usukhbayar is a Mongolian Athlete competing in the 56 kg Weightlifting event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 16 August 2016 the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Non of the parties requested for a hearing and the Athlete did not file a statement in his defence.

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 20 August 2016:

1.) 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.
2.) All results obtained by the Athlete in the Olympic Games Rio 2016 are disqualified with all consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes.
3.) The Athlete is excluded from the Olympic Games Rio 2016.
4.) The Athlete's Accreditation (number 1141787) is withdrawn.
5.) The responsibility for the Athlete's results management in terms of sanction beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is referred to the International Weightlifting Federation being the applicable International Federation.

CAS AD 16/07 International Olympic Committee v. lzzat Artykov

Related case:
CAS 2016_A_4777 Izzat Artykov vs IOC
April, 21, 2017

Mr. Izzat Artykov is a Kyrgyz Athlete competing in the Men’s 69 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 strychnine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Non of the parties requested for a hearing and the Athlete did not file a statement in his defence.

The CAS Panel 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 Panel, that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation under Art. 2 IOC ADR.

Therefore the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel decides on 18 August 2016:

1.) 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.
2.) All results obtained by the Athlete in the Olympic Games Rio 2016 are disqualified with all consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes.
3.) The Athlete is excluded from the Olympic Games Rio 2016.
4.) The Athlete's Accreditation (number 1087397) is withdrawn.
5.) The responsibility for the Athlete's results management in terms of sanction beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is referred to the International Weightlifting Federation being the applicable International Federation.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/006 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Kleber Da Silva Ramos

Related cases:

• CAS OG AD 20/03 IOC vs Kleber Da Silva Ramos
  August 18, 2016
• UCI-ADT 2017 UCI vs Kleber Da Silva Ramos
  January 8, 2018

Mr. Kleber Da Silva Ramos is a Brazilian Athlete competing in the road race cyling event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 7 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 Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA). The IOC opened proceedings CAS OG AD 16/03 against the Athlete with the CAS Anti-Doping Division.

On 11 August 2016 the IOC has reported a second anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA).

Because of the first reported anti-doping rule violation the Athlete was already provisional suspended and also the proceedings in this second case CAS OG AD 16/06 against the Athlete was suspended pending the final award of the Panel in CAS OG AD 16/03.

On 18 August 2016 the CAS Anti-Doping Panel decided in CAS OG AD 16/03 that:

• the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• he was declared ineligible to compete in all competitions in which he had not yet participated at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games;
• he was excluded from the Rio Games;
• his accreditation (number 1210046) was withdrawn; and
• the matter, as to consequences associated therewith, was referred to the UCI accordingly.

After publication of the Award in CAS OG AD 16/03 the Panel resumed the suspended proceedings in CAS OG AD 16/06.

Also in this case the Athlete accepted the test results, waived his right to be heard for the CAS Panel and didn’t file a statement in his defence.

Considering the test results in this case the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel decides on 20 August 2016:

1.) 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.

2.) The responsibility for the Athlete's results management in terms of sanction beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is referred to the UCI being the applicable International Federation.

3.) All remaining requests for relief are denied as moot.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/005 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Xinyi Chen

Related case:

FINA 2016 FINA vs Xinyi Chen
December 7, 2016

• Aquatics (swimming)
• Doping (hydrochlorothiazide)
• Duty of the athlete
• Alternative explanation
• Literal application of the WADA Technical Documents

1. Being a young, honest person and developing outstanding performance results using exclusively fair and accepted training methods neither eliminate nor diminish the athlete’s duty under the IOC Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his/her body, and in case of an Adverse Analytical Finding, his/her duty to explain the source of the prohibited substance.

2. A mere assumption or speculation without any corroborating evidence does not meet the requirement of a consistent alternative explanation for the ingestion of a prohibited substance in order for a CAS panel to feel satisfied “that one of them is more likely than not having occurred”. In particular, contamination in drinking water or meat or other nutrition would most presumably lead to more than just one athlete being found with a prohibited substance in his/her body.

3. Technical Documents being part of the International Standard for Laboratories should be applied literally by laboratories.

Ms Xinyi Chen is a Chinese Athlete competing in the Women’s 100m butterly and the Women’s Freestyle event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 10 August the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ).
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the CAS Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete asserted, sustained by expert witnesses, that a serious lack of care on the laboratory side, which was suspended by WADA already twice prior to Rio 2016, has been shown. In close, the Athlete reiterated her position, on a balance of probability, that she did not commit an ADRV noting the following:
1.) in the short time available, she tested and analysed all medication and vitamins to determine the source of the prohibited substance;
2.) she has a clean anti-doping record from numerous tests in the past;
3.) she underwent a forensic report with an expert of the Public Prosecutor Office, which confirmed and underlined her honesty; and
4.) the numerous mistakes committed by the Rio laboratory in the present case. Therefore, the Athlete should not be disqualified from the 100 m butterfly finals.

The Panel notes that the Athlete undertook enormous efforts in order to find the source for the prohibited substance in her body. None of these tested substances, however, led to any finding with respect of the source of HCTZ.

The Panel finds that as a matter of fact, no evidence on a balance of probability as required by art. 3.1 IOC ADR could be adduced by the Athlete to rebut the laboratory's analysis' result on the A and the B Sample: the presence of the prohibited substance of HCTZ in the Athlete's sample. In the opinion of the Panel there was no departure from the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL).

The Panel concludes that the IOC met the burden of proof under Art. 3.1 IOC ADR. The documents adduced by the IOC establish sufficient proof, to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel, that the presence of the prohibited substance in the Athlete's body constitutes an ADRV under Art. 2 IOC ADR.

Therefore the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel decides on 18 August 2016:

1.) The IOC has established the presence of a prohibited substance in accordance with Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

2.) The result obtained by the Athlete in the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is disqualified in accordance with Article 9 of the IOC ADR, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

3.) In accordance with Art. 10.2.2 IOC ADR, the matter of the Athlete is referred to FINA to decide on the responsibility for result management in terms of sanctions beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/004 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Silvia Danekova

Ms. Sylvia Danekova is a Bulgarian Athlete competing in the Athletics events at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 8 August the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete waived her right to be heard and submitted a statement in her defence.

The CAS Panel finds that the substances mentioned in the Athlete’s letter do not fully correspond to the substances indicated by her on the Doping Control Form. The Athlete did not provide any evidence corroborating her statements in the letter, neither as to the origin of the Prohibited Substance found in her body, nor as to the argued lack of intent.

Considering the test results the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides on 12 August 2016:

1.) The Athlete is declared ineligible to compete in the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

2.) The Athlete is excluded from the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

3.) The Athlete’s Accreditation (number 1117181) is withdrawn.

4.) The responsibility for the Athlete’s results management in terms of sanction beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is referred to the International Association of Athletics Federations being the applicable International Federation.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/003 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Kleber Da Silva Ramos

Related cases:

• CAS OG AD 16/06 International Olympic Committee vs Kleber Da Silva Ramos
  August 20, 2016
• UCI-ADT 2017 UCI vs Kleber Da Silva Ramos
  January 8, 2018

Mr. Kleber Da Silva Ramos is a Brazilian Athlete competing in the road race cyling event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 7 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 Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete accepted the test results, waived his right to be heard for the CAS Panel and didn’t file a statement in his defence.

Considering the test results the CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Art. 2 IOC ADR.

Therefore the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel decides on 12 August 2016:

1.) 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.

2.) All results obtained by the Athlete in the Olympic Games Rio 2016 are disqualified with all consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes.

3.) The Athlete is excluded from the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

4.) The Athlete's Accreditation (number 1210046) is withdrawn.

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

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/002 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Tomasz Zielinski

Related case:

CAS 2017_A_5178 Tomasz Zielinski vs IWF
March 15, 2018

• Weightlifting
  
• Doping (19-Norandrosterone)
  
• 19-Norandrosterone as threshold substance

19-Norandrosterone is a non-specified substance prohibited under S1.1b of the WADA Prohibited List which can also be produced endogenously. Therefore, it is a Threshold Substance for which the International Standard for Laboratories established special criteria for the evaluation of a Sample with particular regard to the decision limits (DL) that shall be applied to determine whether the result indicates an Adverse Analytical Finding.

Mr. Tomasz Zielinski is a Polish Athlete competing in the weightlifting event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

In 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 19-norandrosterone (nandrolone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete denied intentional use of prohibited substances and stated that he was frequently tested and requested dna analysis of the samples and a new anti-doping control. Both requests were dismissed by the Laboratory.

Considering the test results the CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Art. 2 IOC ADR.

Therefore the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel decides on 12 August 2016:
1.) The Athlete is declared ineligible to compete at the Olympic Games Rio 2016.
2.) The Athlete is excluded from the Olympic Games Rio 2016.
3.) The Athlete’s Accreditation (number 1051326) is withdrawn.
4.) The responsibility for the Athlete’s results management in terms of sanction beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is referred to the International Weightlifting Federation being the applicable International Federation.

CAS OG AD 16/01 Pavel Sozykin & RYF vs World Sailing & IOC

• Sailing
  
• Decision of an International Federation to reject the entry of an athlete for the Olympic Games
  
• Jurisdiction of the CAS anti-doping Division
  
• Transfer to the competent jurisdiction

1. It is a sine qua non of the jurisdiction of the CAS anti-doping Division (ADD) that an alleged anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) has been asserted and referred to it under the IOC anti-doping regulations (ADR). A decision that simply states conditions of eligibility to be satisfied by Russian athletes who wish to compete in Rio and is addressed to IFs and the ROC, not to CAS ADD, cannot be construed as such an assertion or reference. Furthermore, from Article 1 of the CAS ADD rules read as a coherent whole and in the context of the IOC ADR which apply only to doping controls “over which the IOC has jurisdiction in connection with the Olympic Games Rio 2016” and are part of the legal matrix of the CAS ADD Rules, it is clear that the alleged ADRV must have occurred “on the occasion of the OG”. A date of sample collection in October 2014 falls far outside the occasion or period of Rio 2016.

2. Even if principles of Swiss law, according to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, demand transfer by a (jurisdictionally) incompetent judge to a competent one, such principles are not shown to be applicable directly if at all to the two CAS Divisions at the Olympic Games, in a structure which is sui generis. While a specific rule exists for the transfer of an arbitration case from the CAS Ordinary Division to the CAS Appeals Division and vice-versa, it does not exist for the transfer of a case from the CAS ADD to the CAS ad hoc Division (AHD). Such silence in the CAS rules cannot be construed as a gap, given that the CAS AHD is clearly identified as the appeals body of the CAS ADD in the CAS ADD Rules. It is therefore for the applicant to redirect the application to the other CAS Division who can itself determine whether to accept it. The absence of an automatic transfer within the CAS Divisions does not affect the rights of any applicant to file the same application to both the CAS ADD and the CAS AHD, either simultaneously, to ensure that at least one of them would retain jurisdiction, or following an award denying jurisdiction by the first of the two Divisions, given that there is no particular time limit to refer a case to the CAS ADD and/or the CAS AHD during the Olympic Games.

On 18 July 2016, WADA's Independent Person, Mr. Richard McLaren, published on the WADA website its official independent report (the "McLaren Report") describing a fraudulent, government directed scheme to protect Russian athletes from ADRVs, including with respect to disqualification during the Sochi Winter Games.

The McLaren report had identified one Russian positive sailing test result said to be suppressed by the Moscow laboratory. WADA informed World Sailing that this pertained to Mr. Sozykin and came from a sample collected on 4 October 2014. The substance said to be detected was JWH 018, a cannibanoid.

On 24 July 2016 the IOC Executive Board issued a decision that no athlete implicated in the McLaren report would be permitted to compete in the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.
As a consequence of the findings in the McLaren Report and the IOC Decision of 24 July 2016 World Sailing decided that the entry of the Russian Athlete Pavel Sozykin was rejected for the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

Hereafter on 2 August 2016 the Athlete and the Russian Yachting Federation (RYF) appealed the decisions issued by the IOC and World Sailing with the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD). The Athlete and RYF requested the CAS ADD Panel to set aside the IOC and World Sailing decisions and to allow him to compete at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.
IOC and World Sailing requested the Panel to reject the appeal because the CAS Ad Hoc Division (CAS AHD) has jurisdiction and not CAS Anti-Doping Division.

The CAS ADD Panel rules on 14 August 2016 that CAS AHD has jurisdiction and not CAS ADD and declines to make any order for transfer of the Athlete’s appeal to CAS AHD.