CAS 2022/ADD/43 Federation Internationale de Ski (FIS) v. Hossein Saveh Shemshaki

Related case:

CAS 2022_ADD_43_OG IOC & FIS vs Hossein Saveh Shemshaki - Partial Award
February 15, 2022

• Skiing (alpine skiing)
• Doping (dehydrochlormethyltestosterone)
• Duty to establish how the prohibited substance entered the athlete’s system

A mere and vague explanation of the manner in which the Adverse Analytical Finding may seem to have occurred is clearly not enough to discharge the athlete’s burden of proof to the comfortable satisfaction of a CAS panel that a prohibited substance entered the athlete’s system in a certain way beyond the athlete’s control.

On 15 February 2022 the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) at the Beijing 2022 Olympic Games in its preliminary Award decided to exclude the Iranian Athlete Hossein Saveh Shemshaki from the Olympic Games after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone.

Hereafter the International Ski Federation (FIS) resumed proceedings regarding consequences of the anti-doping rule violation. This matter was again delegated to CAS ADD for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure.

In these proceeding there was no hearing and the Athlete did not file a new statement in his defence. As a result a Decision was rendered by the Sole Arbitrator based on the written submissions of the Parties.

FIS contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor explained how the prohibited substance had entered his system. FIS requested the Panel to impose a sanction of 4 years on the Athlete.

The Sole Arbitrator confirmed that preliminary already had been established the presence of a prohibited substance in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Arbitrator deems that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional, nor grounds for a reduced sanction.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete in his submissions provided only a mere and vague explanation of the manner in which way the postive test may have seemed to have occurred. He also failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that supplements, food or beverages at the Beijing Olympic Games would have contained the prohibited substance.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration Anti-Doping Division decides on 5 January 2023 that:

1.) The application of the Fédération Internationale de Ski is granted and therefore:

a.) Mr. Hossein Saveh Shemshaki is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years.

b.) Mr. Hossein Saveh Shemshaki is credited the period of provisional suspension already served as from 9 February 2022 and through the date of this Award on Sanction.

2.) The present Award is rendered free of charge.

3.) (…).

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

CAS 2022/ADD/45 International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Irakli Turmanidze

• Weightlifting
• Doping (stanozolol)
• Statute of limitation
• Fairness exception

1. The 2015 IWF Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR) and the corresponding 2021 IWF ADR, which extended the 8-year statute of limitation in the 2009 IWF ADR for re-analysis of samples in long-term storage to 10 years with retroactive application, are consistent with Swiss law and the European Convention on Human Rights. Indeed, the statute of limitations is a procedural rule and in general, the principle of non-retroactivity of rules does not apply to procedural law, which is normally governed by the rule tempus regit actum. The same applies, with some exceptions, to the principle of lex mitior. This principle applies to the norms defining the offences and the penalties for them, but not to the provisions regulating the procedure to be followed in prosecuting and judging the offences.

2. The “fairness exception” should not apply if its application under the particular circumstances prevents the achievement of Article 10.8 of the 2009 IWF ADR primary objective of maintaining the integrity of international and Olympic sports by deterring doping and enabling clean athletes to receive the intangible and economic benefits from retroactive re-rankings and re-allocation of medals. Therefore, the athlete should have the burden of proving by a balance of probability that “fairness” precludes retroactive invalidation of all his competition results since the date of his ADRV pursuant to Article 10.8 of the 2009 IWF ADR (i.e., Article 10.10 of the 2021 IWF ADR and WADC) because application of its general rule imposes a sanction extending beyond the period of time reasonably necessary to achieve its objectives. CAS panels have broad discretion in adjusting the disqualification period to the circumstances of the case.

In June 2021 the International Testing Agency (ITA) published a report on Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) following a series of allegations of misconduct by the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF). The report provided an overview of the findings of the investigation into approximately 146 unresolved cases over the 2009-2019 period.

The report notably uncovered mishandling and impropriety on the part of certain IWF officials in relation to its anti-doping program. As a consequence of these discoveries, the ITA had – among other follow-up actions – asserted ADRVs against former IWF President Tamas Ajan, IWF Vice-President Nicolae Vlad, and Hassan Akkus, President of the European Weightlifting Confederation.

Mr Irakli Turmanidze is a Georgian weightlifter and a member of the Georgian weightlifting team. In April 2012 he participated in the 2012 IWF European Championships in Antalya, Turkey.

Based on their findings about 146 unresolved cases the ITA, on behalf of the IWF, decided in May 2021 to perform further analyses on certain samples collected in 2012. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012.

Consequently the ITA reported in November 2021 an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Irakli Turmanidze after his 2012 sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol. Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. 

Thereupon the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a first instance procedure. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Sole Arbitrator Panel.

The ITA contended that reanalysis had established the presence of the prohibited substance Stanozolol in his 2012 Sample and so that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation. Hence the ITA requested the Panel to impose a sanction of 2 years on the Athlete.

The Athlete requested the Panel to dismiss the case against him or alternatively for a reduced sanction. He asserted that his sample was not tested in accordance with the applicable Rules, nor tested within the statute of limitation.

Following assessment the Sole Arbitrator determines that:

• The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's 2012 sample and accordingly he committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• The ITA’s prosecution filed a request on behalf of the IWF for disciplinary action against the Athlete in this CAS ADD proceeding on 12 April 2022 regarding the Athlete’s 15 April 2012 anti-doping rule violation.
• This filed ITA request complied with the foregoing requirements and the 10-year statute of limitations of the 2015 IWF ADR and 2021 IWF ADR as well as Swiss law and are therefore not time-barred.
• Fairness requires that the period of disqualification shall be 16 April 2012 until 15 April 2014.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 3 January 2023 that:

1.) The Request for Disciplinary Proceedings filed by the International Testing Agency on behalf on the International Weightlifting Federation on 12 April 2022 against Mr. Iraki Turmanidze is partially upheld.

2.) Mr. Iraki Turmanidze committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation of Article 2.1 of the 2009 International Weightlifting Federation Anti-Doping Rules.

3.) Mr. Turmanidze is sanctioned with a two (2) year period of Ineligibility beginning on the date of this award with credit for the period of time of his Provisional Suspension he has served since 17 November 2021.

4.) Mr. Turmanidze’s competition results at the 2012 European Championships in Antalya, Turkey, are automatically disqualified with all the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, prizes and points.

5.) Mr. Turmanidze’s competition results from 16 April 2012 through 15 April 2014 are disqualified with all the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, prizes and points.

6.) (…).

7.) (…).

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

In June 2021 the International Testing Agency (ITA) published a report on Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) following a series of allegations of misconduct by the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF). The report provided an overview of the findings of the investigation into approximately 146 unresolved cases over the 2009-2019 period.

The report notably uncovered mishandling and impropriety on the part of certain IWF officials in relation to its anti-doping program. As a consequence of these discoveries, the ITA had – among other follow-up actions – asserted ADRVs against former IWF President Tamas Ajan, IWF Vice-President Nicolae Vlad, and Hassan Akkus, President of the European Weightlifting Confederation.

On 21 June 2021 the ITA, on behalf of the IWF, reported an anti-doping rule violation against Mr Hassan Akkus for Tampering or Attempted Tampering. Hereafter the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure.

The IWF's central allegation is that Mr Akkus, in conspiracy with the IWF President Mr Tamas Aján and legal counsel Ms Monika Ungar, falsely backdated a letter dated 5 November 2012 in order to seek to validate and justify the transfer of results management for 26 Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs) tested and reported after that date in respect of the 21 athletes from the IWF to TWF and to ensure lesser sanctions than might have been for the Athletes and no sanctions at all against the TWF itself; and many years later also adduced false internal metadata properties in an attempt to authenticate that backdated letter.

Mr Akkus denied the applicability of the IWF ADR and the jurisdiction of the CAS ADD, and without prejudice thereto disputed that he backdated the latter dated 5 November 2012 or that it affected the sanctioning of the 21 athletes or that he acted by tampering or in any other way against the IWF ADR (if applicable, which he denied) especially since the testing was conducted, and/or then the President and the legal counsel of the IWF agreed that the results management including sanctioning should be conducted, by or on behalf of the TWF.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the following issues raised by the Parties:

• (1) Do the 2012 and 2021 IWF ADR apply to Mr Akkus?
• (2) Depending on whether the 2021 IWF ADR apply, is there jurisdiction in the CAS ADD?
• (3) If the 2012 and 2021 IWF ADR apply and there is jurisdiction in the CAS ADD, does it lack necessary protections for guaranteeing independence?
• (4) If Mr Akkus committed a violation of the 2012 IWF ADR as alleged in January 2013, is the charge in June 2021 time-barred by reason of the expiry of 8 years or is that period validly extended “retrospectively” to 10 years under subsequent IWF ADR?
• (5) Did Mr Akkus backdate or knowingly use a backdated letter purportedly dated 5 November 2012 in January 2013 in order to tamper with the results management process (for the 21 athletes who were subject to AAFs, for whom the RM including sanctioning was transferred to the TWF) contrary to the 2012 ADR Art 2.5?
• (6) Did Mr Akkus, as a separate later violation, knowingly backdate or use backdated electronic metadata for that letter in September 2021 in order to tamper with the results management process, contrary to the 2021 IWF ADR Art 2.5?

Ultimately the Sole Arbitrator determines that Mr Akkus betrayed the trust of the IWF and the TWF and their members by subverting the anti-doping results management process in order to limit and/or reduce the available sanctions for the AAFs concerned.

He did so in conspiracy with other senior officers of the IWF, falsely producing the backdated 5 November 2012 letter to conceal the later “switch” from the IWF to the TWF and then submitting the false metadata fraudulently to influence proceedings.

In view of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator concludes that Mr Akkus indeed had tampered with any part of doping control. Furthermore he deems that there are plainly aggravating circumstance of the worst kind in the present case for the imposition of a more severe sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 3 January 2023 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed on behalf of the Claimant the International Weightlifting Federation is partially upheld.

2.) The Respondent Hasan Akkus is found to have committed an ADRV by Tampering or Attempted Tampering in contrary to Article 2.5 of the IWF ADR.

3.) The Respondent is sanctioned with a period of Ineligibility of four (4) years starting on the date on which this CAS ADD award enters into force.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

6.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2022/ADD/46 United World Wrestling (UWW) v. Nathan Dyamin Jackson

• Wrestling
• Doping (boldenone)
• Burden and standard of proof
• Source of the prohibited substance and intentional doping

1. The anti-doping organization has the burden of establishing that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) has occurred. The standard of proof shall be to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. Facts relating to an ADRV may be established by any reliable means including any reliable analytical data from either an A or B Sample establishing the presence of a prohibited substance. Where an ADRV has been established the burden of proof then shifts to the athlete to prove either that the ADRV should not be considered as such, that it was unintentional or that the applicable period of ineligibility can be reduced or eliminated. In that case, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probabilities. If the athlete is to eliminate the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility he must meet the threshold test required under the No Fault or Negligence standard i.e. demonstrate that his ADRV was not intentional and the source of the prohibited substance in the sample.

2. Under the WADA Code, although the requirement of the proof of the source of the prohibited substance is not mandatory, it remains a crucial factor in deciding whether the athlete has succeeded in discharging his burden of proof that the violation was not intentional and that consequently he bore Nor Fault or Negligence. Yet in some cases the proof of the source of the prohibited substance cannot be established. Thus, in a case of meat contamination due to the consumption of the subject meat, the athlete has to demonstrate on the basis of the objective circumstances of the ADRV and his behaviour, that circumstances existed which counteract to a sufficient degree, the likelihood of intentional doping. He must also offer persuasive evidence that the explanation he proffers is more likely than not to be correct, by providing specific, objective and persuasive evidence in support of his submission such as (i) scientific evidence and expertise to determine that it is more likely than not that boldenone is used as a growth promotor in livestock in the relevant country and that the concentration levels of boldenone in his sample are consistent with contamination of meat consumed in the relevant country, and (ii) other evidential factors which contribute to the general circumstances of the case such as the fact that the prohibited substances found in the athlete’s sample was detected among 10% of the total number of athletes tested and, the delayed notification of his positive test which was not satisfactorily explained and may well have caused potentially relevant evidence regarding the source of the prohibited substance to become unavailable to the athlete. Fairness suggests that the delay should be construed in favour of the athlete.

The American wrestler Dyamin Jackson competed for Indiana University and was the winner of the 2021 Senior Pan American Championships, which took place between 27-30 May 2021 in Guatemala City, Guatemala, where he competed in the freestyle-senior 92kg weight class discipline.

In December 2021 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the United World Wrestling (UWW), reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Boldenone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure.

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. He asserted that the source of his positive test was the result of contaminated meat consumed prior to his sample collection in Guatemala in May 2021.

He argued that the delay in the notification of the anti-doping rule violation hampered him in the evidence gathering. He deemed that the violation should have been reported as an Atypical Finding (ATF) and not as an ADRV.

He demonstrated with evidence that Boldenone is used in livestock production in Guatemala. Also relevant is that two other athletes tested positive for Boldenone at the Championships, yet they were treated as ATF.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the following issues in this case:

• (i) Has the Athlete established the source of the Boldenone present in his Sample?
• (ii) Is Boldenone used in livestock or poultry in Guatemala?
• (iii) Did the Athlete consume these products in the days leading up to his positive Sample?
• (iv) Has the Athlete demonstrated he bore No Fault or Negligence?

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete has set out in a systematic way to demonstrate that he was the victim of meat contamination in a country, Guatemala, which is known to use steroids in its livestock production.

Based on the persuasive evidence submitted the Sole Arbitrator determines that the Athlete has demonstrated on the balance of probabilities that meat consumed on the day before his Sample collection was likely contaminated with the Prohibited Substance and it was unintentional.

Having established that he bore No Fault or Negligence for the AAF, then consistent with Article 10.5 UWW ADR, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is eliminated and no period of Ineligibility is imposed.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 November 2022 that:

1.) Mr Nathan Dyamin Jackson is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.2 of the United World Wrestling Anti-Doping Rules (“UWW ADR”).

2.) Mr Nathan Dyamin Jackson has established in accordance with Article 10.5 of the UWW ADR, that he bore No Fault or Negligence for the anti-doping rule violation. No period of Ineligibility is imposed.

3.) In accordance with Article 9 UWW ADR, all the competitive results of Mr Nathan Dyamin Jackson from the Pan-American Championship of May 2021 are Disqualified, with all resulting Consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

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

CAS 2021/A/8125 Heiki Nabi v. Estonian Center for Integrity in Sports

• Wrestling
• Doping (letrozole)
• Plausibility of meat contamination
• Plausibility of contamination by transfer of sweat and/or saliva from other athlete or from gym equipment
• Obligation to establish the specific source of the prohibited substance
• Balance of probability
• Reduction of the sanction based on the principle of proportionality

1. Athletes who have a clean record and do not have uncharacteristically poor competitive results before the violation (and thus avoid the possible inference that they had a motive to cheat) or uncharacteristically good results thereafter (which might be suggested to confirm cheating) will improve their prospects yet further if they can show an invoice from a restaurant indicating they were served meat which could be traced to a wholesale supplier known or suspected by regulatory authorities to feed steroids or other prohibited substances to its livestock.

2. A theory of letrozole contamination by transfer of sweat and/or saliva from other athlete or from gym equipment must be rejected as unlikely (i) without tangible scientific evidence to support this theory, and (ii) given the complexities of letrozole effectively passing through two bodily systems and two skin barriers, and (iii) the athlete’s inability to identify with any kind of certainty the individual who might have transmitted letrozole, and (iv) the fact the no other of the many athletes who train at the same gym and use the same equipment tested positive for letrozole.

3. Establishing the specific source of a prohibited substance is required when an athlete seeks to prove No Fault or Negligence or No Significant Fault or Negligence under the definitions of No Fault or Negligence and No Significant Fault or Negligence in the applicable anti-doping regulations. The “narrowest corridor” through which an athlete who has not been able to conclusively identify the specific source of the prohibited substance may pass to reach a finding of No (Significant) Fault or Negligence only applies to cases involving non-specified substances and only to allow athletes to pass from a four-year period of ineligibility to a two-year period of ineligibility, based on their lack of intention, in the event that in the face of extraordinary circumstances they are unable to establish the source of the adverse analytical finding.

4. The standard of proof of balance of probability requires that the occurrence of a scenario suggested by an athlete must be more likely than its non-occurrence, and not the most likely among competing scenarios.

5. The no fault or negligence and no significant fault or negligence exceptions to otherwise strict liability anti-doping rule are themselves embodiments of the principle of proportionality. Even an ‘uncomfortable feeling’ regarding a sanction mandated in the rules is not sufficient to involve the principle of proportionality where the applicable rules include a sanctioning regime which is proportionate and contains clear and concise mechanism which allows for a reduction of the applicable sanction.

In February 2021 the Estonian Center for Integrity in Sports (ESTCIS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Estonian wrestler after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Letrozole.

Consequently the ESTCIS Disciplinary Board decided on 27 June 2021 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in July 2021 the Athlete appealed the ESTCIS Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to annul or reduce the imposed sanction.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Undisputed for the Parties is that the Athlete's violation was not intentional.

The Panel assessed and addressed the following issues:

• a.) Has the Athlete established how Letrozole entered his system on a balance of probabilities?
• b.) Can the Athlete successfully rely on Article 10.5 EADR (No Fault or Negligence) or Article 10.6 EADR (No Significant Fault or Negligence) to benefit from a reduction in the mandated two-year period of ineligibility?
• c.) Should the two-year period of ineligibility be reduced based on the principle of proportionality?

Thereupon the Panel determines that none of the alternative theories the Athlete has brought forth are sufficiently scientifically probable to convince the Panel on a preponderance of the evidence that their occurrence is more likely that their non-occurrence. He thus fails to establish to source of Letrozole to the required standard of proof.

The Panel rejects all of the Athlete’s contentions that he need not establish the source of the Prohibited Substance in order to successfully rely upon and benefit from Articles 5 and 6 of the EADR. Because he failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, how Letrozole entered his system, he cannot benefit from a reduction in his period of ineligibility on the basis of having No Fault or No Significant Fault for the ADRV.

The Panel has “an uncomfortable feeling” regarding the applicable period of ineligibility. Notwithstanding the same, relying on the above case law, the Panel stresses that this uncomfortable feeling is not sufficient to involve the principle of proportionality by reducing the sanction that has been ruled appropriate on the basis of facts and evidence before the Panel, and more conclusively on the basis of the applicable rules.

The Panel concludes:

• The finding of Letrozole in the Athlete’s sample is the result of incidental exposure.
• The source of the AAF has not been established on a balance of probabilities.
• None of the possible scenarios provided allow the Athlete to satisfy, on a balance of probabilities, his burden to establish the source of Letrozole detected in his urine sample.
• The Athlete is a credible witness and unfortunate victim of what has been determined to be inadvertent administration of trace amounts of Letrozole from an unknown source.
• He is paying a heavy price for incidental circumstances that may, or may not, have been outside of his control, and should not be branded as a cheater or a doper.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 October 2022 that:

1. The appeal filed by Mr. Heiki Nabi on 21 July 2021 against the decision issued by the Disciplinary Board of the Estonian Center for Integrity in Sports on 27 June 2021 is dismissed.

2. The decision issued by the Disciplinary Board of the Estonian Center for Integrity in Sports on 27 June 2021 is confirmed.

3. (…).

4. (…).

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

CAS 2022/A/8727 United Kingdom Anti-Doping Limited v. Wayne Boardman

On 26 June 2021, UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) collected an In-Competition urine Sample from Mr Boardman following a Mid-Season International match between England and Wales Wheelchair Rugby League teams. Analysis of Boardman’s urine Sample returned an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) for metabolites of oxandrolone.

Mr Boardman’s case was first heard by the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) and in a decision dated 23 February 2022, the NADP found ADRV charges proved, but ordered that Mr Boardman should not be subject to any period of Ineligibility on the basis he had been able to show he had acted with No Fault or Negligence. 

UKAD sought to appeal the NADP’s decision to impose no period of Ineligibility on Mr Boardman. In light of Mr Boardman’s status as an International Level athlete, The appeal proceedings were heard before the CAS and an oral hearing took place before a Sole Arbitrator on 13 July 2022.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 28 September 2022 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 15 March 2022 by United Kingdom Anti-Doping Limited against Wayne Boardman with respect to the decision taken by the National Anti-Doping Panel on 23 February 2022 is partially upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the National Anti-Doping Panel on 23 February 2022 is set aside.

3.) Mr Wayne Boardman is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Articles 2.1 and/or 2.2 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules.

4.) Mr Wayne Boardman is sanctioned with a 13-month period of ineligibility starting from 26 June 2021, with credit for any suspension already served by Mr Wayne Boardman.

5.) All competitive results achieved by Mr Wayne Boardman from 26 June 2021 through to and including 28 September 2021 are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

6.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office in a separate letter, shall be borne equally by the Parties.

7.) Each Party shall bear their own costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.

8.) All other or further prayers for relief are hereby dismissed.

CAS 2022/ADD/48 International Skating Union (ISU) v. Laura Barquero Jimenez, consent award

Related case:

CAS 2022_ADD_48 IOC & ISU vs Laura Barquero Jimenez - Partial Award
August 10, 2022

• Skating (pairs skating)
• Doping (clostebol metabolite)
• Ratification and incorporation of a settlement agreement in a consent award
• Verification of the bona fide nature of the settlement agreement

1. Under Swiss Law, an arbitration tribunal has authority to issue an award embodying the terms of the parties’ settlement if the contesting parties agree to a termination of their dispute in this manner. A CAS panel’s ratification of their settlement and its incorporation into a consent award serves the purpose of enabling the enforcement of their agreement.

2. It is the task of the CAS panel to verify the bona fide nature of the settlement agreement to ensure that the will of the Parties has not been manipulated by them to commit fraud and to confirm that the terms of the agreement are not contrary to public policy principles or mandatory rules of the law applicable to the dispute.

Mw. Laura Barquero Jimenez is a Spanish ice-skater competing in the pairs skating competition with her partner in de Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics.

On 21 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 her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Clostebol.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure.

On 10 August 2022 in a Partial Award the CAS ADD ruled that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. Consequently her results obtained at the Beijing 2022 Olympic Games were disqualified.

Hereafter the International Skating Union (ISU) resumed proceedings regarding consequences of the anti-doping rule violation. This matter was again delegated to CAS ADD for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure.

The Athlete had admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She asserted that she acted with No Fault or Negligence.

She explained that the positive test was caused by contamination of surface touched by her emanating from a cream, containing the Prohibited Substance, but not used by her. She also assumed it plausible/probable that the ADRV resulted from an earlier use of a medication containing the prohibited substance.

Hereafter on 25 August 2022 the Parties in this case reached a settlement and requested the Sole Arbitrator to issue a consent award terminating the procedure.

The ISU accepted that the Athlete had established non intentional use on the required balance of probability. The ISU also accepted that the Athlete acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 September 2022 that:

1.) The Sole Arbitrator, with the consent of the International Skating Union and Ms. Laura Barquero Jimenez, hereby ratifies the Case Resolution Agreement signed by the International Skating Union and Ms. Laura Barquero Jimenez on 24 August 2022, which provides that:

a) Ms. Laura Barquero Jimenez 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.

b) A period of one (1) year of ineligibility is imposed on Ms. Laura Barquero Jimenez, starting on 22 February 2022.

c) The period of provisional suspension from 22 February 2022 shall be credited against this period of Ineligibility. The period of Ineligibility shall, therefore, end on 21 February 2023.

2.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the ADD Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by the IOC, which is retained by the ADD.

3.) (…).

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

CAS 2022/ADD/48 International Olympic Committee (IOC) & International Skating Union (ISU) v. Laura Barquero Jimenez

Related case:

CAS 2022_ADD_48 IOC & ISU vs Laura Barquero Jimenez - Settlement
September 6, 2022

• Skating (pairs skating)
• Doping (clostebol metabolite)
• Consequences of an ADRV to teams in sports that are not “team sports”

Article 11.3 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXIV Olympic Winter Games Beijing 2022 (IOC ADR) provides consequences to teams in sports which are not “Team Sports”. As the pairs skating competition involves a team of two, but not within a “Team Sport”, Article 11.3 states that the CAS ADD shall apply the rules of the relevant International Federation to determine the consequences to be imposed on the team. In this respect, Article 11.2.1 of the ISU Anti-Doping Rules provides that the results obtained by the athlete in the teams competition event are disqualified with all resulting consequences. Further, the results obtained by the team in the pairs skating event are disqualified with all resulting consequences.

Mw. Laura Barquero Jimenez is a Spanish ice-skater competing in the pairs skating competition with her partner in de Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics.

On 21 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 her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Clostebol.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the case was referred to the to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure. Thereupon an Award was rendered based on the written submissions of the Parties.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. Regarding further disciplinary proceedings with the ISU she asserted that she acted with No Fault or Negligence.

In view of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 10 August 2022 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by the International Testing Agency on behalf of the International Olympic Committee on 13 June 2022 is upheld.

2.) Ms. Laura Barquero Jimenez 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 XXIV Olympic Winter Games Beijing 2022.

3.) The result obtained by Ms. Laura Barquero Jimenez in the pairs skating competition (short programme) shall be disqualified, with the resulting forfeiture of any and all medals, diplomas, points or prizes.

4.) The team result obtained by Ms. Laura Barquero Jimenez and her partner Mr. Marco Zandron in the pairs skating competition (short programme) shall be 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.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the ADD Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by the IOC, which is retained by the ADD.

7.) (…).

8.) (…).

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