CAS 2020/A/7247 Guillermo Bertola v. Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA)

Related case:

FINA 2020 FINA vs Guillermo Bertola
June 17, 2020

• Aquatics (swimming)
• Doping (blood doping)
• Right of a CAS panel to issue a consent award and purpose of it
• Duty of the CAS panel to verify the bona fide of the settlement agreemen

1. In accordance with Article R56 para. 2, second sentence, of the CAS Code, a CAS panel is expressly allowed to issue an award embodying the terms of a settlement if all parties to the dispute agree. The panel’s endorsement of the settlement agreement and incorporation in an award serves the obvious purpose of rendering it easier for the parties to enforce the settlement agreement.

2. As any settlement “may” be embodied in an award, it is up to the CAS panel to verify the bona fide of the settlement agreement, so that the consent award mechanism is not manipulated by the parties as an instrument of fraud, and to acknowledge that the settlement terms are not contrary to public policy principles or mandatory rules.

In December 2019 FINA reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Argentine swimmer Guillermo Bertola after an ITA Expert Panel concluded that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he had used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method.

Consequently the FINA Doping Panel decided on 17 June 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The FINA Panel concluded that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that he had acted not intentionally when he accepted a blood transfusion from his mother. He also failed to establish grounds for a reduced sanction. 

Hereafter in July 2020 the Athlete appealed the FINA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and thereupon in September 2020 the Parties in this case reached a Settlement Agreement. They requested the Panel to endorse this Settlement Agreement and to render a Consent Award.

The Parties agreed that the sanction of 4 years stands, yet the commencement of the period of ineligibility is backdated by 15 months based on the Athlete's timely admission. Following assessment the Panel deemed that this is a bona fide settlement of the dispute brought to its attention.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 25 January 2021 that:

1.) The Settlement Agreement submitted to the CAS Court Office by the Parties on 30 October 2020 is hereby ratified by the CAS with the consent of the Parties and its relevant terms are incorporated into this arbitral award.

2.) The terms of the Settlement Agreement modify Items 6.2 and 6.3 of the decision of the Anti-Doping Panel of the Fédération Internationale de Natation of 17 June 2020.

3.) Each Party is hereby ordered to perform the obligations and duties as per the Settlement Agreement referred to above.

(…)

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

CAS 2020/ADD/12 Badminton World Federation v. Clement Krobakpo

In July 2020 the Disciplinary Committee of the Organizing Committee of the African Games decided to disqualify the Nigerian badminton player Clement Krobakpo after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Clenbuterol, Heptaminol and Octodrine. The case was referred to the Badminton World Federation (BWF) and hereafter in August 2020 the BWF reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete.

In September 2020 the BWF filed a request for Arbitration with the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS ADD) as first-instance authority. The Sole Arbitrator renders a decision without a hearing based on the Parties' written submissions. 

The Athlete accepted the test result, admitted het violation and denied the intentional use of the substances. He could not explain the presence of the low concentration of Clenbuterol in his sample and suggested that imported contaminated meat in Nigeria had caused the positive test. Further he asserted that the energy drink Freedom Juice he had used was the source of Heptaminol and Octodrine. He had mentioned this product on the Doping Control Form while he was unaware that it contained the ingredient 2-aminoisoheptane (Octodrine). 

The BWF accepted that the energy drink Freed Juice was the source of the Heptaminol and Octodrine and that this violation was unintentional. Yet the BWF contended that the Athlete failed to establish the how the prohibited substance Clenbuterol had entered his system. 

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that it is undisputed that the energy drink he had used was the source of the positive test. Further the Arbitrator holds that the Athlete only had offered speculation to explain the meat contamination and consequently that this defence must be rejected. Finally the Sole Arbitrator considers that there were substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 January 2021 that:

1. The request for arbitration filed by the Badminton World Federation on 25 September 2020 against Mr. Clement Krobakpo is upheld.
2. Mr. Clement Krobakpo committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with the Badminton World Federation’s Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the 2019 African Games in Rabat, Morocco.
3. Mr. Clement Krobakpo is sanctioned with a 4-year period of ineligibility starting from 16 October 2020.
4. All competitive results obtained by Mr. Clement Krobakpo from 25 August 2019 through the date of his provisional suspension are disqualified, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes.
5. (…).
6. (…).
7. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2019/A/6597 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v Jacob Kibet Chulyo Kendagor

Related case:

IAAF 2019 IAAF vs Jacob Kibet Chulyo Kendagor
October 22, 2019

In July 2019 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Jacob Kibet Chulyo Kendagor for evading and refusing to submit to sample collection after notification during an out-of-competition doping control on 21 November 2018.

However in first instance the AIU Disciplinary Tribunal was not satisfied to the level of comfortable satisfaction that the individual seen by the DCO and BCO was the Athlete and decided on 22 October 2019 to dismiss the charge against the Athlete.

Hereafter in November 2019 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of the IAAF (now known as World Athletics) appealed the decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The AIU requested the Panel to set aside the decision of 22 October 2019 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The Athlete disputed to have committed an anti-doping rule violation by relying on affidavits and by submitting that the way in which the investigation by the DCO and BCO was conducted and executed, was flawed and that there was a lack of due diligence on their behalf. The Athlete argued that this case was about mistaken identity and he alleged that he was not notified on 21 November 2018 by the DCO and BCO and that, accordingly, no anti-doping rule violation can be established.

The AIU contended that the charges of the anti-doping rule violations have been sufficiently proven since the DCO and BCO made a valid identification on 21 November 2018 and properly notified the Athlete. Further the AIU asserted that the testimonies of the Athlete and his witnesses were inconsistent and not convincing.

Considering the evidence in this case the Panel finds that the IAAF established to its comfortable satisfaction, beyond a mere balance of probability standard, that the DCO and BCO had interviewed and notified the Athlete on 21 November 2018 and that the Athlete has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation pursuant to Article 2.3 ADR by intentionally misleading the DCO and BCO about his identity and failing or refusing to submit to sample collection.

The Panel holds that the defence raised by the Athlete and the affidavits he relied on were inconsistent and did not corroborate the position of the Athlete. Whereas the Athlete did not attend the hearing, the Panel regards that it did not have the benefit of examining and questioning him further.

Likewise, the inconsistencies and other questions raised in regard to the affidavits could not be addressed by the parties or by the Panel at the hearing, as these witnesses have not been made available by the Athlete notwithstanding the Panel’s request.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 19 January 2021:

1. The appeal filed by the International Association of Athletics Federations on 21 November 2019 against the decision rendered by the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal on 22 October 2019 is upheld.
2. The decision rendered by IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal on 22 October 2019 is set aside.
3. Mr Jacob Kibet Chulyo Kendagor is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four years with effect from the date of this Award but the period between 5 July 2019 and 22 October 2019 shall be credited against the period of ineligibility.
4. All competitive results obtained by Mr Jacob Kibet Chulyo Kendagor between 21 November 2018 and 22 October 2019 shall be disqualified, with all of the consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
5. Mr. Jacob Kibet Chulyo Kendagor shall pay to the IAAF a contribution in the amount of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) toward its legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.
6. All other and further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2020/O/6689 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency

CAS 2020/O/6689 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA)

• World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)
• Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA)

Intervening Parties:

• International Olympic Committee
• International Paralympic Committee
• Russia Olympic Committee
• Russia Paralympic Committee
• European Olympic Committees
• International Ice Hockey Federation
• Russian Ice Hockey Federation
• Lilya Akhaimova, Regina Isachkina, Elena Osipova, Arina Averina, Olga Ivanova, Yana Pavlova, Dina Averina, Yulia Kaplina, Alexey Rubtsov, Ilya Borodin, Evgeniya Kosetskaya, Ekatarina Selezneva, Artur Dalaloyan, Elena Krasovskaia, Nikita Shleikher, Alina Davletova, Evgeny Kuznetsov, Vladimir Sidorenko, Evgenija Davydova, Sayana Lee, Inna Stepanova, Inna Deriglazova, Vladimir Malkov, Maria Tolkacheva, Yana Egorian, Polina Mikhailova, Dmitry Ushakov, Vladislav Grinev, Andrei Minakov, Sofiya Velikaya, Kristina Ilinykh, Nikita Nagornyy, and Andrey Yudin
• Sasha Gusev, Daniil Sotnikov, Ilya Borisov, Igor Ovsyannikov, Nachyn Coular, Valeria Koblova, Elizaveta Sorokina, Ivan Golubkov, Elena Krutova, and Viktoria Potapova

• Multiple sports
• Doping (non-compliance procedure against RUSADA)
• Opportunity for a third party to take part in the constitution of the Panel
• Appointment of the President of the Panel from a list of arbitrators specifically designated by CAS
• Amendments to prayers for relief
• Interpretation of silence under Swiss law
• Characterisation of the WADC as general terms and conditions and rule of surprise
• Strict liability of a signatory
• Standard of proof that the signatory is non-compliant
• Condition for a measure to qualify as a sanction or disciplinary in nature
• Principles applicable to consequences imposed for non-compliance
• Application of the principle of proportionality
• Restrictions on participation and attendance of athletes
• Requirement to compete as neutral athlete and human rights
• CAS power to review reinstatement conditions

This case deals with RUSADA’s alleged non-compliance of a critical requirement under the International Standard for Code Compliance by Signatories (ISCCS) to procure the delivery to WADA of authentic data from the Moscow Anti-Doping Laboratory.

In January 2020 WADA requested CAS for arbitration against RUSADA. Hereafter also the IOC, IPC, ROC, EOC, IIHF, FHR and two Athletes Groups filed their requests to intervene in the proceedings.

WADA contended that the Moscow Data had been materially and improperly altered prior to a copy being provided to WADA in January 2019. The alleged alterations included:

• back-dating;
• disk formatting;
• deletions of database back-ups;
• secure erasing of files;
• selective removal of user action commands from command logs;
• replacement of databases;
• deletion of records;
• removal of tables; and
• missing command logs.

On that account WADA sought a finding of such non-compliance and the imposition of a number of consequences deriving therefrom. RUSADA opposed WADA’s claims. It denied that the data retrieved by WADA from the Moscow Laboratory was manipulated and, in the alternative, denied any responsibility for manipulations and challenged the validity of the Signatory Consequences sought by WADA.

The Intervening Parties’ submissions, in a number of areas, bore substantial similarity to those made by RUSADA or overlapped with submissions made by other Intervening Parties.

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

• the validity of the ISCCS and WADA’s requirement that RUSADA procure the delivery to WADA of authentic data from the Moscow Laboratory;
• whether RUSADA complied with that requirement; and
• if not, what Signatory Consequences can and should be imposed.

At first the CAS Panel in this case dismissed the objections to its jurisdiction and settled a number of other procedural matters raised by the Parties.

The Panel established that RUSADA consented to the 2018 WADC, the ISCCS and the Post Reinstatement Conditions. This consent was not compromised or invalidated by the safegards in its defence.

Also the Panel established that the Post-Reinstatements Data Requirement was valid and binding on RUSADA, and non-compliance could lead to consequences under the ISCCS. The Panel does not accept RUSADA’s submission that there were no changes, losses or deletions of data pertaining to results of doping sample analysis.

Based on the evidence the Panel concludes that RUSADA failed to procure an authentic copy of the Moscow Data and therefore failed to comply with the Post-Reinstatement Data Requirement. The steps taken to manipulate the Moscow Data and deceive WADA could hardly be more serious. For that reason the Panel deems that WADA has established that RUSADA in non-compliance with the 2018 WADC.

The Panel regards that, despite having an opportunity to come clean and draw a line under this scandal by providing access to the Moscow Data, Russian authorities engaged in an extensive manipulation of that data. This conduct is likely to thwart or at least substantially hinder the ability to identify those athletes who participated in the doping scheme.

Having further found that RUSADA failed to comply with the Post-Reinstatement Data Requirement, the Panel has accordingly imposed consequences to reflect the nature and seriousness of the non-compliance and to ensure that the integrity of sport against the scourge of doping is maintained.

Nevertheless the consequences which the Panel has decided to impose are not as extensive as those sought by WADA. This should not, however, be read as any validation of the conduct of RUSADA or the Russian authorities.

Therefore the Court of Arbitrtion for Sport decides on 17 December 2020 that:

1. The Request for Arbitration filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) dated 9 January 2020 is partially upheld.
2. The Panel has jurisdiction to determine this matter.
3. The Russian Anti-Doping Agency (“RUSADA”) is found to be non-compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code (“WADC”) in connection with its failure to procure that the authentic LIMS data and underlying analytical data of the former Moscow Laboratory was received by WADA.
4. The orders below come into effect on the date of this Award and remain in effect until the second anniversary of that date (the “Two-Year Period”).       [...]
5. RUSADA is required to satisfy the following reinstatement conditions during the Two-Year Period (or any shorter period as agreed between WADA and RUSADA) in order to be reinstated as a compliant Signatory.      [...]
6. RUSADA is to pay a fine to WADA of 10% of its 2019 income or USD 100,000 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) (whichever is lower) within 90 (ninety) days from the notification of the present arbitral award. Such amount shall accrue interest at a rate of 5% per annum in case of non-timely payment.
7. The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne 80% by RUSADA and 20% by WADA.
8. RUSADA is ordered to pay WADA a total amount of CHF 400,000 (four hundred thousand Swiss francs) as contribution towards its legal and other expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings within 90 (ninety) days from the date the present award. Such amount shall accrue interest at a rate of 5% per annum in case of non-timely payment.
9. RUSADA and each Intervening Party shall bear its own legal costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration.
10. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2019/A/6587 Badminton World Federation v. Kate Jessica Foo Kune

In 2017 the Badminton World Federation (BWF) launched an investigation against the official of the Mauritius Badminton Association (MBA) Mr. Raj Gaya and established that he had diverted funds intended for the MBA into his personal bank account.

Consequently the BWF Ethics Hearing Panel decided on 21 November 2018 to impose a fine and a lifetime ban from performing any function in badminton. In this ethics case the Mauritian badminton player Kate Jessica Foo Kune and another key withness assisted the BWF in their investigation and testified against Mr. Gaya. 

In June 2019 the BWF reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Kate Foo Kune after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 1-androstenedione. On 21 October 2019 the BWF Doping Hearing Panel deemed that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation but decided not to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete due to no fault or negligence.

Here the Doping Hearing Panel determined that the Athlete more likely than not had demonstrated that she had consumed water that was deliberately spiked with the prohibited substance and victim of malicious sabotage by the MBA. 

Hereafter in November 2019 the BWF appealed the decision of its Doping Hearing Panel with the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The BWF requested the Panel to set aside the Decision of 21 October 2019 and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. 

The BWF accepted that the Athlete’s violation was not intentional but contended that she failed to establish the origin of the prohibited substance. She didn’t demonstrate on the balance of probabilities how the prohibited substance had entered her system nor how an ill-intentioned individual could have deliberately spiked her food or drink with this prohibited substance. 

The BWF argued that it is willing to accept any new evidence, and that it is open to re-evaluate its position regarding such new evidence, that would allow the Athlete to demonstrate that sabotage took place, or any other mitigating circmumstances. 

The Athlete explained why an accidental contamination of her supplements or her food and water consumed during the Championships in Nigeria was not possible. Instead she submitted that the positive test resulted by way of the malicious sabotage by the MBA or Mr. Gaya, or an associate of either. In particular, she asserted that her team backpack had been left out-of-sight several times during the Championships in Nigeria and that the most likely explanation for the positive test is that her water was intentionally spiked without her knowing during this period. 

The Panel regards that the Parties in this case did not dispute that the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation was unintentional. It also finds that it is not absolutely necessary for the Athlete to show the origin of the prohibited substance to establish absence of intent.

Nevertheless the Panel deems that the Athlete didn’t provide sufficient evidence that supports her assertion while the scientific analysis of an independent expert witness underminded the allegation of sabotage.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete failed to establish on a balance of probabilities how the prohibited substance entered her system. Consequently andy plea of no (significant) fault or negligence must be rejected. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 December 2020 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the Badminton World Federation against the decision rendered by the BWF Doping Hearing Panel on 21 October 2019, is upheld.

2.) The decision issued by the Badminton World Federation Doping Hearing Panel on 21 October 2019, is partially set aside.

• Ms. Kate Jessica Foo Kune has violated Article 2.1 of the BWF Anti-Doping Regulations and committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• Ms. Kate Jessica Foo Kune is suspended for two (2) years as from the date of this decision in accordance with Article 10.1 of the BWF Anti-Doping Regulations, with credit given for any period of ineligibility already served.
• The results obtained by Ms. Foo Kune during the All African Championships on 28 April 2019 shall automatically be disqualified, pursuant to Article 9 of the BWF Anti-Doping Regulations.

3.) The present arbitration procedure shall be free of charge, except for the CAS Court Office Fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss francs), which has already been paid by the Badminton World Federation and is retained by the CAS.

4.) Each party shall bear its own legal and other costs.

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

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 2020/A/6978 Andrea Iannone v. FIM
CAS 2020/A/7068 WADA v. FIM and Andrea Iannone

On 31 March 2020 the Disciplinary Court of the International Motorcycling Federation (FIM) decided to impose a reduced 18 month period of ineligibility on the Italian motorcycle racer Andrea Iannone after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Drostanolon.

Here the Disciplinary Court accepted that the positive test was the result of contaminated meat he had ingested in Malaysia prior to the 2019 Sepang FIM World Championship MotoGP. 

Hereafter the Athlete, in April 2020, and WADA, in May 2020, appealed the FIM Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Both parties sought to set aside the FIM Decision of 31 March 2020: the Athlete requested the Panel for a further reduced sanction while WADA requested the Panel for the imposition of a 4 year period of ineligibility. 

The Athlete asserted, supported by expert witnesses, that there are grounds for No Fault or Negligence to impose a further reduced sanction. He argued that the violation was not intentional; the source of the prohibited substance was contaminated meat; he was tested before without issues; he voluntarily underwent a hair test; and he made any possible and reasonable efforts to prevent the contested anti-doping violation.

FIM supported the Athlete’s assertations that the violation was not intentional and that he demonstrated on a balance of probability that the presence of Drostanolone was the result of his consumption of contaminated meat. 

WADA contended that the Athlete failed to establish on the balance of probability that the origin of the prohibited substance was contaminated meat, nor did he demonstrate that there are grounds to reduce the sanction. 

The Panel deems that the Athlete failed to establish neither the precise type of meat he had consumed nor the origin of the meat in question. It finds that the Athlete nor his expert witnesses were able to establish specifically that there was an issue of meat contamination by Drostanolone in Malaysia. 

The Panel concludes that the Athlete has not established on a balance of probabilities that the violation was not intentional and thus it upholds WADA’s Appeal and sets aside the FIM Decision of 31 March 2020.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 10 November 2020 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Iannone on 21 April 2020 against the decision rendered by the International Disciplinary Court of the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme dated 31 March 2020 is rejected.

2.) The appeal filed by WADA on 12 May 2020 against the decision rendered by the International Disciplinary Court of the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme dated 31 March 2020 is upheld.

3.) The decision rendered by the International Disciplinary Court of the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme dated 31 March 2020 is set aside.

4.) Mr. Iannone is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four years commencing on 17 December 2019.

5.) All competitive results obtained by Mr. Iannone within from and including 1 November 2019 through the commencement of his suspension are disqualified, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

6.) (…)

7.) (…)

8.) (…)

9.) All other or further requests or motions for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2020/A/6747 Mehdi Sohrabi v. Union Cycliste Internationale

Related case:

UCI-ADT 2019 UCI vs Mehdi Sohrabi
Januari 17, 2020

On 17 January 2020 the UCI Anti-Doping Panel decided to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Iranian cyclist Mehdi Sohrabi due to the abnormal values in his Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).

In First Instance the UCI Anti-Doping Panel deemed that the Athlete failed to produce any evidence that contradicted the findings of the Expert Panel and it was comfortably satisfied that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation in the form of a prohibited substance or prohibited method that had been used.

Hereafter in February 2020 the Athlete appealed the UCI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Decision of 17 Januari 2020 and to establish and declare that he had not committed any anti-doping rule violation.

The Athlete disputed the reliability of the ABP and argued that the UCI ADT had ignored his explanations and arguments. He believed that his blood sample in question did not belong to him due there were many irregularities during the blood collection that resulted in departures of the ISTI.

The UCI contended that Athlete's ABP showed abnormalities and that many of his contentions and allegations should be dismissed. Not only failed the Athlete to establish that the violation was not intentional nor did he demonstrate that the alleged departures of the ISTI could have caused the anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that CAS has no jurisdiction to address the Athlete's request for damage compensation and that his submissions not to lift the Provisional Suspension are not relevant.

The Arbitrator rejected the Athlete's defence that his blood sample in question did not belong to him. He also could not demonstrate on a balance of probability that a departure occurred and that such departure could have caused the anti-doping rule violation. Neither did he explain other sources convincingly for the abnormal blood values.

The Arbitrator upholds the findings of the UCI Expert Panel and he concludes that he is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete committed and anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 October 2020 that:

1.) The Court of Arbitration for Sports has no jurisdiction to rule on the appeal filed by Mr Mehni Sohrabi on 3 February 2020 in respect to paragraph 4 of the request of relief in the Statement of Appeal about the damage compensation.
2.) The appeal filed by Mr Mehni Sohrabi on 3 February 2020 against the decision rendered by the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal on 17 January 2020 is dismissed.
3.) The decision rendered by the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal on 17 January 2020 is confirmed.
4.) The Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Mr Mehni Sohrabi, which is retained by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
5.) Mr Mehni Sohrabi shall pay to the Union Cycliste Internationale a contribution in the amount of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) toward its legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.
6.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.