CAS 2020/A/6981 Thai Amateur Weightlifting Association (TAWA) et al. v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)

In October 2018, during the Youth Olympic Games in Argentina, one Thai athlete tested positive for exogenous testosterone. A few weeks later, during the IWF World Championships held between 1-10 November 2018 in Turkmenistan, nine Thai athletes tested positive for exogenous testosterone, that is, half of the Thai delegation. Prior to these in-competition controls, on 11 October 2018, twenty Thai athletes had been targeted for an out-of-competition in their training camp in Chiang Mai, and fifteen of them returned AAFs for the same substance, exogenous testosterone.

These numerous adverse analytical findings (AAFs) created a major crisis for TAWA and its national team and TAWA appointed an investigation committee to analyze these AAFs.

At the same time reanalysis of samples of the Beijing (2008) and London (2012) Olympic Games revealed numerous anti-doping rule violations committed by weightlifting athletes.

Due to the IOC considered excluding the sport of weightlifting from the Olympic program the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) and its Member Federations were forced to implement efficient anti-doping controls and policies.

Consequently on 1 April 2020 the IWF Panel concluded that the actions of TAWA had brought the sport of weightlifting into disrepute and decided to impose a fine and a 3 year period of ineligibility on TAWA. Further TAWA and its athletes were excluded to participate in the Tokyo Summmer Olympic Games.

Hereafter in April 2020 TAWA and the members of the Thai national team appealed the IWF Decision of 1 April 2020 with the Court of Arbiration for Sport (CAS).

TAWA and all its affiliated athletes agreed not to participate in the Tokyo Summer Olympic Games. Yet they requested the Panel that as from 1 April 2020 no sanction shall be imposed on TAWA and its affiliated athletes.

The Appellants asserted the CAS jurisdiction and standing to appeal of the Athletes and raised procedural issues regarding the conduct of the proceedings by the IWF Panel. Finally, the Appellants addressed substantive claims regarding the Appealed Decision.

As a result of the Parties’ submissions the CAS Panel examined and ruled about the following issues:

• The procedural flaws of the proceedings by the IWF Panel alleged by the Appellants and the Appellants’ criticism of the IWF sanction system
• The Application of a sanction under Article 12.7 IWF ADP for bringing disrepute to the sport of weightlifting
• Whether the Appealed Decision breached the principle of legality
• Whether the criteria used for imposing a fine were wrong
• Whether the Appealed Decisions goes against the prohibition against double jeopardy (i.e., ne bis in idem)
• Whether the Appealed Decision breaches the principle nulla poena sine culpa
• Whether the Appealed Decision is discriminatory and amounts to a collective punishment
• Whether the sanctions determined in the Appealed Decision are grossly disproportionate
• TAWA’s measures to fight doping
• The circumstances of the ADRVs
• The conduct of TAWA
• The consequences of the Undertaking and of the Challenged Decision
• The COVID-19 crisis
• Principle of proportionality
• Whether the Appealed Decision breaches the Appellants’ personality rights

Ultimately the Court of Arbitration for Sports decides on 8 April 2021 that:

1.) The Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed by the Thai Amateur Weightlifting Association, et al. against the International Weightlifting Federation against the decision rendered by the IWF Panel on 1 April 2020.

2.) The appeal filed by the Thai Amateur Weightlifting Association, et al. against the International Weightlifting Federation against the decision rendered by the IWF Panel on 1 April 2020 is partially upheld.

3.) The decision rendered by the IWF Panel on 1 April 2020 is set aside and replaced as follows:

• a.) TAWA junior athletes (athletes under the age of 18 at the time of the AAFs in October/November 2018) shall not be allowed to participate in IWF Events until 5 months following the 1st Online PanAm Cup LIVE by ZKC, i.e. until 18 December 2020.
• b.) All other TAWA athletes shall not be allowed to participate in IWF Events until 11 months following the 1st Online PanAm Cup LIVE by ZKC, i.e. until 18 June 2021. This sanction may be lifted as early as 18 December 2020 upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth at section (g) below.
• c.) No TAWA athlete shall be eligible to participate in the XXXII Summer Olympic Games, whenever those Games may occur.
• d.) Except for the early participation opportunity for TAWA athletes to participate in IWF Events after the dates set forth above, TAWA is suspended for a period of 3 years through 1 April 2023.
• e.) Except for TAWA athletes not being allowed to participate in IWF Events, TAWA technical officials or other TAWA representatives are allowed to participate in IWF activities.
• f.) TAWA officials are suspended for 2 years through 1 April 2022 and are not eligible to be appointed to any IWF position so long as TAWA remains suspended.
• g.) The 3-year suspension of TAWA may be lifted on or after 7 March 2022 if TAWA can demonstrate to the IWF Independent Monitoring Group:
  
  • i) TAWA athletes, athlete support personnel and officials are receiving anti-doping education at a level which complies with the WADA International Standard for Education;
  • ii) TAWA provides evidence that, notwithstanding the fact that the Sports Authority of Thailand is the party contracting with coaches working at the Chiang Mai training center, TAWA has the authority to vet and approve any coach hired by the Sports Authority of Thailand to coach TAWA athletes. Further, prior to approving the hiring of any weightlifting coach training TAWA athletes at the Chiang Mai training center, or other TAWA national team training center or camp, TAWA will thoroughly investigate that coach’s anti-doping background, for example prior antidoping rule violations committed by that coach or one of his/her athletes, whether that coach comes from a country or countries with a track record of doping in weightlifting and whether the coach is familiar with the basic principles of the IWF ADP together with the potential causes of unintentional anti-doping rule violations.
  • iii) TAWA shall actively supervise any coach working with its athletes at the Chiang Mai training center or other TAWA national team training center or camp, TAWA shall provide evidence that it has the authority to have the coach removed when that coach’s performance is not consistent with best practices of anti-doping.
  • iv) The fine set forth below has been paid in full.
• h.) The fine imposed on TAWA shall be $200,000.00.

4.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by the Thai Amateur Weightlifting Association (TAWA) et al, which is retained by the CAS.

5.) The Thai Amateur Weightlifting Association (TAWA) is ordered to pay the International Weightlifting Federation a total amount of five thousand Swiss francs (CHF 5,000) as a contribution towards the expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

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

CAS 2020_O_6762 World Athletics vs RusAF & Yelena Soboleva

Ms Yelena Soboleva is a 38-year-old former middle-distance runner of lnternational-Level specialized in 1500 meters distance. She participated in the 2005 Helsinki and in the 2007 Osaka IAAF World Championship in Athletics, obtaining the
fourth and second position in the 1500 meters competition, respectively.

Previously in July 2008 the Athlete was sanctioned for 2 years and 9 months for a tampering violation including disqualification of her results.

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.

Furthermore in 2016 World Athletics decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected in 2007. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2007.

Consequently World Athletics reported in December 2016 and in May 2019 two anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete. Hereafter in February 2020 the World Athletics referred the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that the Athlete had committed 2 anti-doping rule violations in 2007 and in 2013:

• for the presence of Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol) in her 2007 sample; and
• for the use of Methasterone as a result of her participation in the Moscow Washout Testing.

World Athletics asserted that 4 unofficial samples were listed in the Moscow Washout Schedules as belonging to the Athlete, provided on 23 June 2013, 4, 8 and 27 July 2013. This would prove that the Athlete was part of a doping programme and that she had used Methasterone in the leadup to the 2013 Moscow World Championships.

Despite being duly invited to do so, RusAF did not file any submission. Also the Athlete did not engage in this procedure, nor filed any submission or provided any form of defence whatsoever in this arbitration.

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

• The presence of the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone has been established in the Athlete's 2007 sample and accordingly she committed an anti-doping rule violation under the 2007 Rules.
• It is undisputed that the Athlete featured in the Moscow Washouts Schedules, other than the fact that she was indeed engaged in a doping programme.
• The Moscow Washout Testing Schedules revealed that in summer 2013 the Athlete used Mathasterone and accordingly committed an anti-doping rule violation under the 2013 Rules.
• Due to the Athlete's sporting results from April 2007 until April 2011 had been already annulled it is fair and reasonable to disqualify her results obtained from June 2013 until 15 December 2016.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 April 2021 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics against the Russian Athletics Federation and Yelena Soboleva is upheld.

2.) Yelena Soboleva is found guilty of anti-doping rule violations under Rule 32.2 (a) of the IAAF Competition Rules 2006-2007 and under Rule 32.2 (b) of the IAAF Competition Rules 2012-2013.

3.) Yelena Soboleva is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of eight (8) years starting from the date of this award.

4.) All competitive results achieved by Yelena Soboleva from 23 June 2013 through the commencement of the Athlete's period of provisional suspension on 15 December 2016 are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any medals, titles, ranking points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The cost of the arbitration, to be determined and served on the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the Russian Athletics Federation.

6.) Each party shall bear its own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.

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

CAS 2020/0/6761 World Athletics v. Russian Athletics Federation & Andrey Silnov

Related case:

World Athletics 2022 WA vs Andrey Silnov
January 18, 2023

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 Formestane, Metenolone and Methasterone had been established in the 2 samples of the Athlete Andrey Silnov. provided in 2013.

Consequently in May 2019 World Athletics reported anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for the use of these prohibited substances. In February 2020 the World Athletics referred the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that two unofficial samples were listed in the Moscow Washout Schedules as belonging to the Athlete, which would date from 8 and 18 July 2013. 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, the Athlete would have been using up to three prohibited substances: Methasterone, Methenolone and Formestane.

The Athlete denied that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation and argued that the appeal should be dismissed. Further he disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by WADA, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov.

Despite being duly invited to do so, RusAF did not file any submission.

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, from which it can be inferred that the Athlete had used the prohibited substances Methasterone, Methenolone and Formestane between 8 July 2013 and 18 July 2013.
• There are several aggravating circumstances in this case that justify the imposition of the maximum sanction allowed.
• The retroactive disqualification of the Athlete's competitive results is fair end necessary to restore the integrity of all the sporting competitions and to protect the interest of the sport and of the rest of athletes.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 April 2021 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics against the Russian Athletics Federation and Andrey Silnov is upheld.

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

3.) Andrey Silnov is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years stmiing from the date of this award.

4.) All competitive results achieved by Andrey Silnov from 8 July 2013 through the commencement of the period of ineligibility are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The cost of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the Russian Athletics Federation.

6.) Each party shall bear its own costs and other expenses incmTed in connection with this arbitration.

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

CAS 2020/0/6760 World Athletics v. Russian Athletics Federation & Oksana Kondratyeva


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 4-Hydroxytestosterone, Boldenone and Oxabolone had been established in the 3 samples of the Athlete Oksana Kondratyeva provided in 2013.

Consequently in May 2019 World Athletics reported anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for the use of these prohibited substances. In February 2020 the World Athletics referred the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that 3 unofficial samples were listed in the Moscow Washout Schedules as belonging to the Athlete, which would date from 2, 18 and 25 July 2013. 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, the Athlete would have been using up to 3 prohibited substances: 4-Hydroxytestosterone, Boldenone and Oxabolone.

Despite being duly invited to do so, RusAF did not file any submission. Also the Athlete did not engage in this procedure, nor filed any submission or provided any form of defence whatsoever in this arbitration.

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

• The Athlete used prohibited substances within the Washout Testing Programme as part of a doping plan or scheme in the summer of 2013.
• The Moscow Washout Schedules showed that the Athlete had used the prohibited substances 4-Hydroxytestosterone, Boldenone and Oxabolone between 2 and 18 July 2013.
• There are several aggravating circumstances in this case that justify the imposition of the maximum sanction allowed.
• The retroactive disqualification of the Athlete's competitive results is fair end necessary to restore the integrity of all the sporting competitions and to protect the interest of the sport and of the rest of athletes.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 April 2021 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics against the Russian Athletics Federation and Oksana Kondratyeva is upheld.

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

3.) Oksana Kondratyeva is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting from the date of this award.

4.) All competitive results achieved by Oksana Kondratyeva from 2 July 2013 through the commencement of the period of ineligibility are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The cost of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the Russian Athletics Federation.

6.) Each party shall bear its own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.

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

CAS 2020/O/6759 World Athletics v. Russian Athletic Federation & Natalya Antyukh

Related case:

CAS 2021_A_8012 Natalya Antyukh vs World Athletics
June 13, 2022

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 1-Testosterone, Boldenone, Desoxymethyltestosterone, Methasterone, Oxabolone and  Prasterone (DHEA) had been established in the 4 samples of the Athlete Natalya Antyuk provided in 2013.

Consequently in May 2019 World Athletics reported anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for the use of these prohibited substances. In February 2020 the World Athletics referred the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that 6 unofficial samples were listed in the Moscow Washout Schedules as belonging to the Athlete, which would date from 30 June 2013, 6 July 2013, 14 July 2013 and 25 July 2013. 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, the Athlete would have been using up to 6 prohibited substances: 1-Testosterone, Boldenone, Desoxymethyltestosterone, Methasterone, Oxabolone and  Prasterone (DHEA).

The Athlete denied that she had committed an anti-doping rule violation and argued that the appeal should be dismissed. Further she disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by WADA, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov.

Despite being duly invited to do so, RusAF did not file any submission.

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, from which it can be inferred that the Athlete had used the prohibited substances 1-Testosterone, Boldenone, Desoxymethyltestosterone, Methasterone, Oxabolone and  Prasterone (DHEA) between 30 June 2013 and 25 July 2013.
• There are several aggravating circumstances in this case that justify the imposition of the maximum sanction allowed.
• The retroactive disqualification of the Athlete's competitive results is fair end necessary to restore the integrity of all the sporting competitions and to protect the interest of the sport and of the rest of athletes.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 April 2021 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics against the Russian Athletics Federation and Natalya Antyukh is upheld.

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

3.) Natalya Antyukh is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting from the date of this award.

4.) All competitive results achieved by Natalya Antyukh from 30 June 2013 through the commencement of the period of ineligibility are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The cost of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the Russian Athletics Federation.

6.) Each party shall bear its own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.

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

CAS 2020/A/6988 Andrey Isaychev v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency RUSADA

• Athletics (middle-distance running)
• Doping (prohibited association)
• Methods of interpretation of legal/regulatory provisions
• Requirements of the prohibited association rule
• Burden and standard of proof under the Russian Anti-
• Doping Rules (ADR) in relation to an anti-doping rule violation
• Appeal arbitration dispute decided ex aequo et bono

1. Under Swiss law, if the provision under review is clear and unambiguous, an authority applying it is bound to follow its literal meaning, provided it expresses its true meaning. Only if a text is not clear and if several interpretations are possible, one must determine its true scope by analysing its relation with other provisions (systematic interpretation), its legislative history (historic interpretation) and the spirit and intent of such provision (teleological interpretation). It is not for CAS panels to question the policy or intent of anti-doping rule makers, in particular given that the WADA Code emphasises that “when reviewing the facts and the law of a given case, all (…) adjudicating bodies should be aware of and respect the distinct nature of the anti-doping rules in the Code and the fact that those rules represent the consensus of a broad spectrum of stakeholders around the world with an interest in fair sport”.

2. It is unambiguous that for article 2.10 of the Russian ADR to be applied to an athlete, s/he must have been previously advised in writing by a relevant anti-doping agency of said athlete support person’s disqualifying status and of the potential consequence of a prohibited association and that said athlete can reasonably avoid the association.

3. According to article 3.1 of the Russian ADR, the RUSADA shall have the burden of establishing that an ADR violation has occurred. The Standard of proof shall be whether the RUSADA has established an ADR violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made.

4. It is accepted that the arbitral tribunal could decide ex aequo et bono also in appeal proceedings (pursuant to Article R58 of the CAS Code), if the parties so agree.

• Mr Andrey Isaychev is a Russian track athlete participating in competitions organized, convened, authorized or recognized by RusAF. 
• Mr. Vladimir Semenovich Kazarin is a Russian athletics coach, training short, middle and long-distance runners.

On 7 April 2017 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decided to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Coach Kazarin (CAS 2016/A/4480) for committing anti-doping rule violations: Possession, Trafficking, and Administration of multiple Prohibited Substances. 

The Athlete was aware that the Coach had been banned from officially training athletes, yet he continued training unofficially with the Coach. Previously on 19 July 2018 the Athlete had signed an acknowledgment form regarding Order 37 which listed the names of disqualified Russian coaches prohibited from training athletes. 

In June 2019 RUSADA reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for Prohibited Association with the Coach. Consequently the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee decided on 17 December 2019 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. 

Hereafter in April 2020 the Athlete appealed the RUSADA Decision with CAS. 

In this Appeal it is undisputed between the Parties that:

• (i) the Athlete was aware that the Coach had been banned from training athletes;
• (ii) the Athlete trained with the Coach after the Coach was banned by the CAS in 2017; and
• (iii) in July 2018 the Athlete signed the acknowledgment form that referred to the Order 37.

However the Parties disagree whether the Order 37 was presented or made available to the Athlete at the time of signing the acknowledgement form.

The Athlete denied he committed an anti-doping rule violation and requested compensation for sustained damages. He asserted that before he signed the acknowledgment form on 19 July 2018 the Order 37 itself was not provided to him. He and other athletes testified that no one had explained the content of the Order 37, nor made the Order 37 available for their review. 

The Sole Arbitrator scrutinized the Prohibited Association Rule and concludes that, in order to establish a violation of Article 2.10 of the ADR applicable in this case, the Athlete ought to have first been advised in writing by an anti-doping organization with jurisdiction over the Athlete of the Coach's disqualifying status and the potential consequence of prohibited association therewith. Failing to do so, a violation cannot properly be established. 

Further the Sole Arbitrator assessed the issue as to whether an advanced written notice was servered to the Athlete prior to establishing a violation of Article 2.10 of the ADR.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that RUSADA did not establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator that the Athlete was previously advised in writing by an anti-doping agency of the Coach's disqualifying status and the potential consequences of prohibited association.

Accordingly, RUSADA did not establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator that the Athlete infringed Article 2.10 of the ADR. 

The Sole Arbitrator observes that the Athlete did not submit any evidence that he sustained damages due to the alleged misconduct by RUSADA. He did not substantiate in any manner the amount of damages, nor established a nexus between RUSADA’s alleged misconduct and any alleged moral damages or financial loss incurred by the Athlete. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 April 2021 that: 

1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Andrey Isaychev on 15 April 2020 against the Russian AntiDoping Agency with respect to the decision no. 21/2020 of 17 December 2019 of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of Russian Anti-Doping Agency is partially upheld.

2.) The decision no. 20/2020 of 17 December 2019 of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of Russian Anti-Doping Agency is set aside.

3.) All individual results earned by Mr. Andrey Isaychev from 15 November 2018 are reinstated.

4.) The request for compensation filed by Mr. Andrey Isaychev is dismissed.

5.) The costs of the present arbitration, to be determined and separately communicated to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be shall be borne by 20% by Mr. Andrey Isaychev and by 80% by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency.

6.) The Russian Anti-Doping Agency is ordered to contribute to the legal fees and expenses incurred by Mr. Andrey Isaychev in the amount of CHF 4,500 (four thousand five hundred Swiss francs).

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

CAS 2020/A/6987 RudolfVerkhovykh v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency RUSADA

• Athletics (sprint)
• Doping (prohibited association)
• Methods of interpretation of legal/regulatory provisions
• Requirements of the prohibited association rule
• Form of the previous advice in writing set forth in the prohibited association rule
• Burden and standard of proof under the Russian Anti-
• Doping Rules (ADR) in relation to an anti-doping rule violation
• Invalid justification for a continued prohibited association between an athlete and a coach
• Appeal arbitration dispute decided ex aequo et bono
• Right to be heard

1. Under Swiss law, if the provision under review is clear and unambiguous, an authority applying it is bound to follow its literal meaning, provided it expresses its true meaning. Only if a text is not clear and if several interpretations are possible, must one determine its true scope by analysing its relation with other provisions (systematic interpretation), its legislative history (historic interpretation) and the spirit and intent of such provision (teleological interpretation). It is not for CAS panels to question the policy or intent of anti-doping rule makers, in particular given that the WADA Code emphasises that “when reviewing the facts and the law of a given case, all (…) adjudicating bodies should be aware of and respect the distinct nature of the anti-doping rules in the Code and the fact that those rules represent the consensus of a broad spectrum of stakeholders around the world with an interest in fair sport”.

2. It is unambiguous that for article 2.10 of the Russian ADR to be applied to an athlete, s/he must have been previously advised in writing by a relevant anti-doping agency of said athlete support person’s disqualifying status and of the potential consequence of a prohibited association and that said athlete can reasonably avoid the association.

3. The form of the written notice set forth in art. 2.10 of the Russian ADR is not specified. The model template contained in the WADA Guidelines is not mandatory to use and said Guidelines do not prohibit that such statement be prepared by an athlete upon specific oral instructions from an anti-doping organization.

4. According to article 3.1 of the Russian ADR, the RUSADA shall have the burden of establishing that an ADR violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the RUSADA has established an ADR violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made.

• Mr Rudolf Verkhovykh is a Russian track athlete participating in competitions organized, convened, authorized or recognized by RusAF.  
• Mr. Vladimir Semenovich Kazarin is a Russian athletics coach, training short, middle and long-distance runners.

On 7 April 2017 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decided to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Coach Kazarin (CAS 2016/A/4480) for committing anti-doping rule violations: Possession, Trafficking, and Administration of multiple Prohibited Substances.  

However the Athlete continued training unofficially with the Coach until April 2019. Previously on 30 October 2018 the Athlete had produced a written statement indicating that he was aware that he was prohibited to associate with the Coach.

In June 2019 RUSADA reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for Prohibited Association with the Coach. Consequently the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee decided on 17 December 2019 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.  

Hereafter in April 2020 the Athlete appealed the RUSADA Decision with CAS.

In this Appeal it is undisputed between the Parties that: 

• (i) the Athlete was aware that the Coach had been banned from training athletes;
• (ii) the Athlete trained with the Coach after the Coach was banned by the CAS in 2017; and
• (iii) in October 2018 the Athlete had a meeting with a RUSADA official, during which the Athlete produced a written statement. 

However, the following principal issues are disputed between the Parties: 

• Is it necessary that an athlete has been previously advised in writing by an antidoping agency of the athlete support person's disqualifying status and the potential consequences of prohibited association before an athlete could be sanctioned for a violation of Article 2.10 of the ADR?
• If so, did the Athlete's written statement prepared on 30 October 2018 satisfy this requirement?

The Athlete denied he committed an anti-doping rule violation and requested compensation for sustained damages. He believed that the Coach could train him unofficially and he was unaware of the allegations against the Coach.

He argued that his written statement prepared by him on 30 October 2018 was not a valid written notice within the meaning of Article 2.10 of the ADR. He also asserted that he did not receive any written notice from RUSADA. 

The Sole Arbitrator scrutinized the Prohibited Association Rule and concludes that, in order to establish a violation of Article 2.10 of the ADR applicable in this case, the Athlete ought to have first been advised in writing by an anti-doping organization with jurisdiction over the Athlete of the Coach's disqualifying status and the potential consequence of prohibited association therewith. Failing to do so, a violation cannot properly be established.  

Further the Sole Arbitrator assessed the issue as to whether an advanced written notice was servered to the Athlete prior to establishing a violation of Article 2.10 of the ADR. 

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that RUSADA established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation of Article 2.10 of the ADR. The Athlete had received a written notice under Article 2.10 of the ADR from RUSADA on 30 October 2018.

Furthermore, it is undisputed between the Parties that the Athlete nonetheless continued to associate with the Coach as the Athlete participated in training activities with the Coach on 15 November 2018 and 22 April 2019 in the Republic of Kyrgyzstan. 

The Sole Arbitrator observes that the Athlete did not submit any evidence that he sustained damages due to the alleged misconduct by RUSADA. He did not substantiate in any manner the amount of damages, nor established a nexus between RUSADA’s alleged misconduct and any alleged moral damages or financial loss incurred by the Athlete.  

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 April 2021 that:  

1.) The appeal filed on 15 April 2020, by Mr. Rudolf Verkovykh against the decision no. 22/2020 of 17 December 2019 issued by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of Russian Anti-Doping Agency, is dismissed.

2.) The decision no. 22/2020 of 17 December 2019 of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of Russian Anti-Doping Agency is upheld.

3.) The costs of this arbitration, to be determined by the CAS Court Office, shall be paid by Mr. Rudolf Verkovykh.

4.) Each Party shall bear their own costs incurred m connection with the present proceedings.

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

CAS 2020/A/6986 Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency RUSADA

• Athletics (middle-distance running)
• Doping (prohibited association)
• Methods of interpretation of legal/regulatory provisions
• Requirements of the prohibited association rule
• Burden and standard of proof under the Russian Anti-
• Doping Rules (ADR) in relation to an anti-doping rule violation
• Appeal arbitration dispute decided ex aequo et bono

1. Under Swiss law, if the provision under review is clear and unambiguous, an authority applying it is bound to follow its literal meaning, provided it expresses its true meaning. Only if a text is not clear and if several interpretations are possible, must one determine its true scope by analysing its relation with other provisions (systematic interpretation), its legislative history (historic interpretation) and the spirit and intent of such provision (teleological interpretation). It is not for CAS panels to question the policy or intent of anti-doping rule makers, in particular given that the WADA Code emphasises that “when reviewing the facts and the law of a given case, all (…) adjudicating bodies should be aware of and respect the distinct nature of the anti-doping rules in the Code and the fact that those rules represent the consensus of a broad spectrum of stakeholders around the world with an interest in fair sport”.

2. It is unambiguous that for article 2.10 of the Russian ADR to be applied to an athlete, s/he must have been previously advised in writing by a relevant anti-doping agency of said athlete support person’s disqualifying status and of the potential consequence of a prohibited association and that said athlete can reasonably avoid the association.

3. According to article 3.1 of the Russian ADR, the RUSADA shall have the burden of establishing that an ADR violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the RUSADA has established an ADR violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made.

4. It is accepted that the arbitral tribunal could decide ex aequo et bono also in appeal proceedings (pursuant to Article R58 of the CAS Code), if the parties so agree.

• Ms Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova is a Russian track athlete participating in competitions organized, convened, authorized or recognized by RusAF. 
• Mr. Vladimir Semenovich Kazarin is a Russian athletics coach, training short, middle and long-distance runners.

On 7 April 2017 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decided to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Coach Kazarin (CAS 2016/A/4480) for committing anti-doping rule violations: Possession, Trafficking, and Administration of multiple Prohibited Substances. 

The Athlete was aware that the Coach had been banned from officially training athletes, yet she continued training with the Coach until the end of 2019. Previously on 21 July 2018 the Athlete had signed an acknowledgment form regarding Order 37 which listed the names of disqualified Russian coaches prohibited from training athletes. 

In June 2019 RUSADA reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for Prohibited Association with the Coach. Consequently the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee decided on 17 December 2019 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. 

Hereafter in April 2020 the Athlete appealed the RUSADA Decision with CAS. 

In this Appeal it is undisputed between the Parties that:

• (i) the Athlete was aware that the Coach had been banned from training athletes;
• (ii) the Athlete trained with the Coach after the Coach was banned by the CAS in 2017; and
• (iii) in July 2018 the Appellant signed the acknowledgment form that referred to the Order 37.

However the Parties disagree whether the Order 37 was presented or made available to the Athlete at the time of signing the acknowledgement form.

The Athlete denied she committed an anti-doping rule violation and requested compensation for sustained damages. She asserted that before she signed the acknowledgment form on 21 July 2018 the Order 37 itself was not provided to her. She and other athletes testified that no one had explained the content of the Order 37, nor made the Order 37 available for their review. 

The Sole Arbitrator scrutinized the Prohibited Association Rule and concludes that, in order to establish a violation of Article 2.10 of the ADR applicable in this case, the Athlete ought to have first been advised in writing by an anti-doping organization with jurisdiction over the Athlete of the Coach's disqualifying status and the potential consequence of prohibited association therewith. Failing to do so, a violation cannot properly be established. 

Further the Sole Arbitrator assessed the issue as to whether an advanced written notice was servered to the Athlete prior to establishing a violation of Article 2.10 of the ADR.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that RUSADA did not establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator that the Athlete was previously advised in writing by an anti-doping agency of the Coach's disqualifying status and the potential consequences of prohibited association.

Accordingly, RUSADA did not establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator that the Athlete infringed Article 2.10 of the ADR. 

The Sole Arbitrator observes that the Athlete did not submit any evidence that she sustained damages due to the alleged misconduct by RUSADA. She did not substantiate in any manner the amount of damages, nor established a nexus between RUSADA’s alleged misconduct and any alleged moral damages or financial loss incurred by the Athlete. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 April 2021 that: 

1.) The appeal filed by Mrs. Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova on 15 April 2020 against the Russian Anti-Doping Agency with respect to the decision no. 20/2020 of 17 December 2019 of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of Russian Anti-Doping Agency is partially upheld.

2.) The decision no. 20/2020 of 17 December 2019 of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of Russian Anti-Doping Agency is set aside.

3.) All individual results earned by Mrs. Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova from 15 November 2018 are reinstated.

4.) The request for compensation filed by Mrs. Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova is dismissed.

5.) The costs of the present arbitration, to be determined and separately communicated to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by 20% by Mrs. Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova and by 80% by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency.

6.) The Russian Anti-Doping Agency is ordered to contribute to the legal fees and expenses incurred by Mrs. Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova in the amount of CHF 4,500 (four thousand five hundred Swiss francs).

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