In 2016, Professor Richard McLaren issued two reports about systemic doping in Russia. These reports identified a significant number of Russian athletes who were involved in, or benefitted from, the doping schemes and practices that he uncovered.

Hereafter in January 2019 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) recovered the internal database of the Moscow Laboratory (LIMS). Following investigation of allegations of organized doping practices, and in particular of the LIMS, WADA provided international federations with investigation reports on the athletes implicated in these organized doping practices.

These investigation reports revealed that the prohibited substances Enobosarm (Ostarine), Oxandrolone and Trenbolone had been established in the 2 samples of the Athlete Yelena Korobkina provided in July 2013 and in July 2014 .

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

World Athletics contended that one unofficial sample and one official sample were listed in the Moscow Washout Schedules as belonging to the Athlete, which would date from 31 July 2013 and 25 July 2014. This would prove that the Athlete was part of a doping programme.

In this regard, in accordance with the information contained in these schedules, in the leadup to the 2013 Moscow World Championships and the 2014 European Championships, the Athlete would have been using up to three prohibited substances.

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

The Athlete denied that she had committed an anti-doping rule violation and asserted that she had been tested before without issues. Further she disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by WADA, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence provided by the Parties and determines that:

• The Athlete used prohibited substances within the Washout Testing Programme as part of a doping plan or scheme.
• The Moscow Washout Schedules are reliable with respect to the Athlete's entries and her use of prohibited substances.
• The Athlete used, in or around July 2013, Trenbolone and Ostarine.
• The Athlete used, in on around July 2014, Trenbolone and Oxandrolone.
• The Athlete violated Rule 32.2(b) of the 2012 and the 2014 IAAF Competition Rules.
• There are several aggravating circumstances in this case that justify the imposition of the maximum sanction allowed.
• Fairness requires that the Athlete's results are disqualified from 2 July 2013 to 24 July 2016.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAS 2023/ADD/62 International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF) v. Lidiia Hunko

Ms Liddiia Hunko is a Ukrainian Athlete, competing in the Women's monobob event at the Beijing 2022 Olympic Winter  Games.

In February 2022 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone.

The Athlete admitted the violation, accepted a provisional suspension and consequences. She assumed that contaminated supplements had caused the positive test result.

Accordingly the ITA decided on 22 July 2022 that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and that her results obtained at the Beijing Olympic Games are disqualified.

Thereupon the case was referred to the International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF) for continuation of the case. In November 2022 the Athlete failed to accepted the sanction of 3 years proposed the IBSF.

Ultimately in May 2023 the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure.

In this proceedings the Athlete failed to respond. Previously in her submissions the Athlete had denied that she ever had used prohibited substances and argued that she was tested before without issues.

The Athlete refused to plead guilty for a violation she never had committed. Further she disputed the process and the integrity of the Anti-Doping Authorities in view of State-sponsored doping programms.

Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Arbitrator determines that there are no grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 26 September 2023 that:

1.)The request for arbitration filed on 31 May 2023 by the International Testing Agency (ITA) on behalf of the International Bobsleigh & Sekeleton Federation (IBSF) is upheld.

2.) Ms. Lidiia Hunko is found to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation pursuant to Article(s) 2.1 (and/or 2.2) of the IBSF Anti-Doping Rules.

3.) Ms. Lidiia Hunko is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years in accordance with Article 10.2.1 of the IBSF Anti-Doping Rules, starting from the date of this Award.

4.) Ms. Lidiia Hunko shall receive credit for the period of Provisional Suspension served from 21 February 2022 against the period of ineligibility imposed by this Award.

5.) All individual competitive results of Ms Lidiia Hunko from and including the date of sample collection (14 February 2022) are disqualified with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, awards, points and prizes pursuant to Article 10.10 of the IBSF Anti-Doping Rules.

6.) (…).

7.) (…).

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

In January 2022 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swedish tennis player Mikael Ymer for 3 Whereabouts Filing Failures within a 12 month period.

Yet, on 23 June 2022 the ITF Independent Tribunal determined that the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation in respect of his 3rd Whereabouts Failure.

Hereafter in July 2022 the ITF appealed the Decision of 23 June 2022 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The ITF requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 2 years on the Athlete.

The ITF holds that its appeal centres on the Athlete's 3rd Whereabouts Failure and contended that the Doping Control Officer (DCO) on 7 November 2021 attempted to test the player during the 60-minute time slot by visiting the location specified for that timeslot. 

The ITF asserted that the DCO did what was reasonable in the circumstances to locate the Athlete. By contrast the Athlete denied his negligence and claimed that the DCO failed to do what was reasonable under the circumstances to locate the Athlete.

The Athlete stated that the filing task for his Whereabouts was delegated to a third party. He was not aware that on 7 November 2021 his stay in another tournament hotel in Roanne, France, did not correspond with his whereabouts filing for that day.

Following assessment of the evidence the Panel determines that de DCO did all that was required of him to locate the Athlete at the indicated hotel. Further the Panel deems that it is not the duty of the DCO to try to find the Athlete in another location than the Athlete's specified location.

The Panel is not satisfied on a balance of probability that the Athlete's behaviour was not negligent and did not cause or contribute to his failure to be available for testing.

The Panel finds it reasonable to expect that a tennis
player in the IRTP would not have delegated the filings task entirely to a third party, but  that such an Athlete would have verified the whereabouts filing made for that day, and
would thus have realized that his stay at the tournament hotel did not correspond with his whereabouts filing for that day.

Considering the Athlete's degree of fault the majority of the Panel finds that a sanction of 18 months must be imposed on the Athlete. Furthermore the Panel deems that there are no grounds to disqualify the Athlete's results prior to this Decision.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 17 July 2023 that:

1.) The Appeal filed by the International Tennis Federation against Mr Mikael Ymer with respect to the decision of the Independent Tribunal of 23 June 2023 is partially upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the Independent Tribunal on 23 June 2023 is set aside.

3.) Mr Mikael Ymer is found to have committed an anti-doping violation under Article 2.4 of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme.

4.) Mr Mikael Y mer is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 18 ( eighteen) months, starting from the date of notification of this Award.

5.) No results occurring between the time of the third missed test on 7 November 2021 and the date of this award are disqualified.

6.) The present arbitration proceedings shall be free of charge, except for the CAS Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by the International Tennis Federation, which is retained by the CAS.

7.) Each party shall bear its own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

8.) All other applications and requests for relief are dismissed.

2022/ADD/ 56 International Surfing Association v. Vasco Ribeiro

In May 2022 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the International Surfing Association (ISA), reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Portuguese surfer Vasco Ribeiro for his Refusal or failure to submit to sample collection.

The Doping Control Officer (DCO) reported that in April 2022 the Athlete was present at his residence for an out-of-competition sample collection. Following notification the Athlete first called his coach and then he told the DCO he was instructed to refuse sample collection because het had consumed alcohol.

Although warned by the DCO about the consequences the Athlete persisted in his refusal. Thereupon the Athlete also ignored the DCO's phone calls outside his residence and refused to sign the Notification Form.

Following notification the Athlete filed a statement in his defence. Thereupon in December 2022 the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure.

The ISA contended that it was undisputed that the Athlete had refused or failed to submit to sample collection. There was no compelling justification for his refusal and the Athlete was properly warned of the consequences of his refusal.

The Athlete acknowledged that he suffered from an additiction and that the night before he had used Cannabis and Cocaïne. Confronted with the DCO he had a severe anxiety and panic reaction because of what he prior had consumed.

He explained that he acted with ignorance, had not received anti-doping education and followed the wrong advice of his coach. Further he alleged that the DCO had informed him insufficiently about the consequences of his refusal.

In view of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete had refused or failed to submit to sample collection. Moreover the DCO had informed the Athlete that his refusal would produce serious consequences.

The Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete failed to demonstrate a compelling justification for his refusal and thus his anti-doping rule violation has been established. Further he  considers that there are exceptional circumstances present in this case that justifies a reduction of the sanction based on his degree of fault.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 July 2023 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by the International Surfing Association against Vasco Ribeiro is partially upheld.

2.) Vasco Ribeiro has committed a violation of Article 2.3 of the ISA Anti-Doping Rules and is declared ineligible to compete for a period of three (3) years commencing as of the notification of the present Arbitral Award.

3.) All competitive results of Vasco Ribeiro from 17 April 2022 until the notification of the present Arbitral Award are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

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

2022/ADD/52 International Olympic Committee (IOC) & Federation International de Ski (FIS) v. Ms Valentyna Kaminska - Partial Award

Ms Valentyna Kamiska is a Ukrainian cross-country skier, competing in the Women’s ski events at the Beijing Winter Olympics in February 2022.

In February 2022 the International Testing Agency, on behalf of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances 1,4-dimethylpentylamine, Heptaminol and Mesterolone.

Ultimately in October 2022 the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure. A Partial Award was rendered based on the written submissions of the Parties.

The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use and could not explain how the substances had entered her system. She assumed that contaminated supplements might be the source of the positve test.

In June 2022 the Athlete shipped five supplements to the Lausanne Laboratory for analysis. However the Laboratory established that these supplements tested negative for all three prohibited subsances.

In view of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of the prohibited substances have been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. Consequently the Athlete's results obtained at the Beijing Winter Olympics shall be disqualified.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 March 2023 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by the International Testing Agency on behalf of the International Olympic Committee on 19 October 2022 is upheld.

2.) Ms. Valentyna Kaminska is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.1 and/or Article 2.2 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXIV Olympic Winter Games Beijing 2022.

3.) The results obtained by Ms. Valentyna Kaminska in the Women’s Sprint Free, the Women’s 10km Classic shall be disqualified, with the resulting forfeiture of any and all medals, diplomas, points or prizes.

4.) The results obtained by the team of the Olympic Athletes from Ukraine in Women’s 4 x 5km Relay of 12 February 2022 event at the Olympic Winter Games Beijing 2022 are disqualified with the resulting forfeiture of any and all medals, diplomas, points or prizes.

5.) With the issuance of this Partial Arbitral Award, the IOC’s participation in this proceeding is hereby terminated.

6.) (…).

7.) (…).

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

CAS 2022/A/9141 Mariano Tammaro v. International Tennis Federation (ITF)

Related case:

ITF 2022 ITF vs Mariano Tammaro
August 25, 2022

In November 2021 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian tennis player Mariano Tammaro after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Clostebol. Consequently the ITF Independent Tribunal decided on 25 August 2022 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In first instance the Panel accepted that the Athlete had demonstrated the source of the prohibited substance and that the violation was not intentional. Considering the circumstances in this case the Panel deemed that there were no grounds for No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Hereafter in September 2022 both the Athlete and the ITF appealed the ITF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Following assessment of the case the CAS Panel rendered an operational award.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 March 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Mariano Tammaro on 12 September 2022 against the decision rendered on 25 August 2022 by the Independent Tribunal of the International Tennis Federation (ITF) is partially upheld.

2.) The decision rendered on 25 August 2022 by the Independent Tribunal of the International Tennis Federation  ITF) is partially set aside. The 3rd bullet point of paragraph 109 of the decision of the Independent Tribunal of the International Tennis Federation (ITF) is set aside and replaced with the following:

Mr. Mariano Tammaro is declared Ineligible and barred from participating in any Competition, Event or other activity or funding in accordance with the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme for a period of fifteen (15) months commencing on 30 November 2021.

3.) This arbitral Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss francs) paid by Mr. Mariano Tammaro, which is retained by the CAS.

4.) Each Party shall bear their own legal fees incurred in connection with this arbitration.

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

• CAS 2022/A/9031 Stephane Houdet v. International Tennis Federation
• CAS 2022/A/9137 International Tennis Federation v. Stephane Houdet

Related case:

ITF 2022 ITF vs Stéphane Houdet
June 30, 2022

In October 2021 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French wheelchair tennis player Stéphane Houdet for his whereabouts filing failures and 3 missed tests within a 12 month period. Consequently the ITF decided on 30 June 2022 to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In first instance the Panel deemed that the Athlete had acted with a degree of fault in his obligation to be present and available for testing. Bij contrast the Panel concluded that the DCO did what was reasonable in the circumstances to locate the Athlete.

Hereafter in July 2022 the Athlete, and in September 2022 the ITF, appealed the Decision of 30 June 2022 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to eliminate or reduce the imposed sanction. By contrast ITF requested the Panel to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed the circumstances regarding the 3 missed tests and addressed the issues raised by the Parties in these matters. The Sole Arbitrator establishes that the incidents of 2 January 2021, 26 July 2021 and 21 September 2021 amounted in 3 missed tests.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete's degree of fault in respect of the whereabouts filing of 2 January 2021 warrants a reduction of the period of ineligibility. In respect to the 26 July 2021 missed test the Athlete had admitted his negligence.

The Sole Arbitrator deemed that the Athlete's degree of fault in respect to the missed test on 27 September 2021 does not warrant a further reduction of the sanction. Further the Arbitrator agrees that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 March 2023 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Stéphane Houdet on 14 July 2022 against the decision issued on 30 June 2022 by the ITF Independent Tribunal is admissible and is upheld in part.

2.) The appeal filed by the International Tennis Federation on 12 September 2022 against the decision issued on 30 June 2022 by the ITF Independent Tribunal is admissible and is upheld in part.

3.) The decision issued on 30 June 2022 by the ITF Independent Tribunal is set aside.

4.) Mr Houdet is found to have committed an ADRV under Article 2.4 of the 2021 TADP as a result of three Missed Tests on (i) 2 January 2021, (ii) 26 July 2021, and (iii) 27 September 2021.

5.) Mr Houdet is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 14 months.

6.) The period of ineligibility is deemed to have started on 27 December 2021 and concludes upon notification of this Award.

7.) Mr Houdet's results from 27 December 2021 to the date of this Award (and any medals, titles, ranking points and prize money won by virtue of those results) are disqualified.

8.) Mr Houdet's results from 27 September 2021 to the commencement of his period of ineligibility on 27 December 2021 (and any medals, titles, ranking points and prize money won by virtue of those results) shall not be retroactively disqualified.

9.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by each of Mr Houdet in respect of his appeal and the International Tennis Federation in respect of its appeal, which is retained by the CAS.

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

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

In August 2021 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American tennis player Varvara Lepchenko after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Adrafinil and Modafinil.

The ITF Independent Tribunal concluded that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional and decided on 3 March 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Hereafter in March 2022 the Athlete appealed the ITF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete testified that following the ITF Tribunal hearing she returned home and found, in the lining of a travel bag that had been stored away, a bottle of bemetil capsules. She had purchased this product in Ukraine in October 2020 and from which she had consumed capsules in the days prior to the competition.

Those capsules, and an unopened bottle independently sourced by the ITF, were sent for testing at a WADA-accredited laboratory, both of which were found to contain Modafinil, which was not listed on the bottle label.

As a result the ITF accepted that the source of the Modafinil acid in the Athlete's samples was her ingestion of capsules of bemetil that she had purchased in Ukraine and were, unknowen to her, contamined with Modafinil.

The ITF holds that this is the Athlete's second Anti-Doping Rule Violation. However, because she bore No Fault or Negligence for her first violation, the current violation is treated as her first for the purpose of sanction. 

In October 2022 the Parties reached an agreement and they requested the Panel to confirm the content of a Settlement agreement into a Consent Award.

The parties have agreed with the written approval of WADA that:

1. Ms. Lepchenko has committed a violation of the Programme;
2. she must serve a period of ineligibility of twenty-one months; and
3. that period starts on 19 August 2021, and so ends at midnight on 18 May 2023. In accordance with Programme articles 9.1 and 10.1.1, all ranking points and prize money obtained by Ms. Lepchenko at the Event and subsequent events prior to 27 July 2021 are disqualified.

Following assessment the Panel deems that it is right to ratify the Settlement Agreement and its terms are incorporated into this Consent Award.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 31 January 2023 that:

1. The Settlement Agreement submitted to the CAS Court Office by the Parties on 26 October 2022 is hereby ratified by the Panel with the consent of the Parties and its terms are incorporated into this Consent Award.
2. The arbitral procedure CAS 2022/A/8766 Varvara Lepchenko v International Tennis Federation is terminated and deleted from the CAS roll.
3. The Parties are hereby ordered to perform their respective obligations and duties in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
4. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the arbitration costs shall be borne by the CAS, save that the CAS Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 paid by Varvara Lepchenko shall be retained.
5. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, each Party shall bear its own costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.
6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.