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 23 June 2021 the ITA, on behalf of the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF), reported anti-doping rule violations against Mr Tamás Aján for Tampering and Complicity regarding:

• the anti-doping rule violations committed by the Athlete Roxana Cocos;
• the anti-doping rule violations committed by several Azerbaijani weightlifters; and
• unsanctioned anti-doping rule violations committed by IWF athletes prior to the year 2014.

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

The IWF contended that in the light of Mr Aján’s status and high official position held within the IWF and involvement in the IWF’s anti-doping matters and given the particularly deceptive and obstructing conduct displayed by Mr Aján over a decade, the appropriate sanction in the present case shall be a lifetime period of Ineligibility.

Mr Tamás Ajan denied the violations and asserted that CAS ADD lacks juridiction and statute of limitations. Further he disputed the legality and admissibility on the filed evidence.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence and issues raised by the Parties. Preliminary the Sole Arbitrator deems that:

• the present case against Tamás Aján is not time-bared;
• the evidence in this case is lawfully collected and can be used in this procedure.

Ultimately the Sole Arbitrator determines that Mr Tamás Aján had tampered with the Doping Control Process and was complicit in the anti-doping rule violations committed by:

• the Athlete Roxana Cocos;
• the Azerbaijani weightlifters; and
• IWF athletes prior to the year 2014.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 June 2022 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by the International Testing Agency on 21 December 2021, acting on delegation from the International Weightlifting Federation, against Mr Tamás Aján is upheld.

2.) Mr Tamás Aján is found to have committed violations of Articles 2.5 and 2.8 of the 2009 International Weightlifting Anti-Doping Rules, Articles 2.5 and 2.8 of the 2012 International Weightlifting Anti-Doping Rules and Articles 2.5 and 2.9 of the 2015 International Weightlifting Anti-Doping Rules.

3.) A lifetime Ineligibility is imposed on Mr Tamas Aján starting on the date of this Award.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

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

CAS 2021/ADD/42 International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Nicu Vlad

• Weightlifting
• Doping (assistance with an anti-doping rule violation)
• CAS ADD jurisdiction
• Admissibility of the request for arbitration
• Interpretation of the scope of the IWF ADR
• Statute of limitation
• Means of proof regarding the ADR
• Offence of assisting an anti-doping violation
• Sanction

---

1. According to Article 8.1.1 of the 2021 IWF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR), the IWF has delegated its responsibility to act as first instance to the CAS ADD. Furthermore, Article A2 of the CAS ADD Rules provides that the CAS ADD has jurisdiction to rule as a first-instance authority on behalf of any sports entity which has formally delegated its powers to the ADD to conduct anti-doping proceedings and impose applicable sanctions.

2. Pursuant to Article A13 of the CAS ADD Rules, a Request for Arbitration must contain “the name and full address of the Respondent(s)”. Yet, the addresses communicated after the filing of the Request for Arbitration by the claimant may be considered valid where there is no contrary indication by the respondent. To decide otherwise would give a disproportionate importance to the formal conditions of the Request for Arbitration, as soon as the respondent was successfully notified by email and, thereafter, by courier via his counsel and in light of the minimal impact for the respondent to have his case heard on the merits rather than to have it disposed of on a technicality.

3. According to Swiss law, statutes and regulations of associations have to be construed and interpreted in the same way as public laws. Accordingly, the interpretation of the statutes and rules of sport associations must be objective and always start with the wording of the rule. The intentions (objectively construed) of the association including any relevant historical background may be taken into consideration. In any event, anti-doping rules shall be construed in a manner which will “discern the intention of the rule maker” rather than frustrate it. Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation to determine the meaning when the interpretation “leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable”. In this respect, the scope of the 2009 IWF ADR, worded “shall apply to the IWF, each National Federation of the IWF, and each Participant in the activities of the IWF”, is broad. An interpretation according to which natural persons holding high offices of the IWF or of other IFs or NFs do not fall under the categories “IWF” and “National Federations” of the scope of the 2009 IWF ADR would de facto grant immunity for anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs) committed by those persons although, in accordance with Article 3.4.2 of the IWF Constitution and Article 14.1 of the 2009 IWF ADR), said persons in their capacity as board members etc., are responsible to fully comply with the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) and to implement effective mechanisms to combat any doping by its members. Such interpretation leads to a result that is both “manifestly absurd” and “unreasonable”, and which the draftsmen of the 2009 IWF ADR (and the 2009 WADC) could surely not have intended.

4. Article 49 (1) and (4) (“Prescription”) of the Final Chapter of the Swiss Civil Code provides that “Where the new laws specifies a longer period than the previous law, the new applies, provided prescription has not yet taken effect under the previous law”. Therefore, any retroactive extension of the limitation period provided by the IWF ADR 2015 from 8 to 10 years does not violate Swiss law. Moreover, the difficulty related to gathering evidence is inherent to long statute of limitation periods, which do not in and of themselves violate the respondent’s rights.

5. Pursuant to Article 3.2 of the 2009, 2012 and 2015 IWF ADR, an ADRV can be established by any reliable means including the content of an authentic and contemporaneous correspondence.

6. Article 2.8 of the 2009 IWF ADR covers numerous acts, which are intended to assist another or a third party’s ADRV. The assistance can constitute assistance provided in the preliminary stages before an ADRV is committed. It also covers acts, which are supposed to prevent an ADRV from being discovered after it has been committed. The rule does not stipulate how substantial the assistance has to be in order to fulfil the elements of the Article 2.8 IWF ADR, however, the standard is probably low because according to the wording of the provision, even just “any type of complicity” is sufficient. An act of assistance for the purposes of Article 2.8 also requires that the person concerned is aware of the anti-doping rule violation committed by another party, otherwise there is no intent to assist a third-part in the first place.

7. Pursuant to Article 10.3.2 of the 2009 IWF ADR, the period of ineligibility imposed for the violation of Article 2.8 shall be a minimum of four years up to a lifetime unless the conditions for exceptional circumstances pursuant Article 10.5 of the 2012 IWF ADR are met. The fact that (i) an ADRV is committed by a person holding high offices, (ii) the ADRVs are serious and (iii) the official’s conduct is both deceptive and obstructing, are all elements allowing to consider a lifetime period of ineligibility.

---

Mr Nicu Vlad is the former President (1997-2021) and former Head-Coach (1998-2010) of the Romanian Weightlifting Federation (FRH), Vice-President of the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) Anti-Doping Commission (2010-2013) and Chairman of the IWF Technical Committee (2017-2021).

In his capacities as Chairman of the IWF’s Anti-Doping Commission and Vice-President of the Romanian Olympic Committee Mr Vlad was also involved and supervised the FRH and IWF anti-doping activities. In particular the administration of Adverse Analytical Finding (AAFs) and anti-doping rule violations committed by FRH athletes.

In June 2021 the ITA, on behalf of the IWF, reported anti-doping rule violations against the Romanian weightlifter Roxana Cocos for the presence of a Prohibited Substance in her 13 April 2012 Sample and for resorting to sample substitution on 27 June 2012. Consequently on 26 November 2021, the ITA issued a decision imposing a lifetime eligibility on the Athlete for her multiple anti-doping rule violations.

ITA conducted an anti-doping investigation and thereupon reported anti-doping rule violations agains Mr Vlad for Tampering with the Doping Control process and for his complicity in covering the anti-doping rule violations committed by the Athlete Roxana Cocos.

After notification the IWF 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 settled the case based on the Parties' written submissions.

The IWF contended that Mr Vlad knowingly did not enforce Ms Cocos’ Provisional Suspensions. The content of the emails of 20 and 24 July 2012 are abundantly clear: the Athlete was to be removed from the 2012 London Olympic Games and the fear of having her test positive (and not being able to conceal it) were expressly mentioned by the Mr Vlad. The fact that the email audit trail stops after 24 July 2012 is not only expected, but further corroborates the evidence of the ADRV.

Mr Vlad asserted that he is not subject to the IWF ADR; the 10-year statitute of limitation is not applicable in this case; and he denied that he had tampered the doping control process.

Following assessment of the Parties' written submissions and annexes the Sole Arbitrator concludes:

• Mr Vlad is bound by subsequent versions of the 2009 IWF ADR including the 2021 IWF ADR.
• The present case in not time-barred regarding the statutes of limitations.
• With knowledge and intent Mr Vlad acted complict in the anti-doping rules committed by the Athlete Cocos in 2012.
• A lifetime period of ineligibility is appropriate to the severity and Mr Vlad’s misbehaviour.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 June 2022 that:

1. The request for arbitration filed by the International Testing Agency on 22 December 2021, acting on delegation from the International Weightlifting Federation, against Mr. Nicu Vlad is upheld.
2. Mr Nicu Vlad is found to have committed violations of Article 2.8 of the 2009 International Weightlifting Anti-Doping Rules.
3. A lifetime Ineligibility is imposed on Mr Nicu Vlad starting on the date of this Award.
4. (…).
5. (…).
6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2021/A/8296 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) & Vladimir Obukhov

• Football
• Doping (methandienone)
• Non-binding force of CAS precedents
• Purpose and limits of the provision on substantial assistance
• Conditions for finding substantial assistance
• Consequences of a finding of substantial assistance
• Determination of the period of ineligibility to be suspended

---

1. Each case must be decided on its own facts. Although consistency is a virtue, correctness remains a higher one.

2. Substantial Assistance is an essential mechanism in the fight against doping. It is therefore important that the objective to encourage athletes, subject to the imposition of an ineligibility period, to come forward if they are aware of doping offences committed by other persons, is not undermined by an overly restrictive application of the provision. At the same time, however, it is important that “benefits” to athletes are not applied too lightly, without clear evidence of Substantial Assistance: the fight against doping is a serious matter, and only effective assistance in its pursuit can entitle an athlete to obtain a benefit with respect to the ineligibility period he/she has to serve for his/her anti-doping rule violation.

3. For Substantial Assistance to be found, it is not necessary that the information is in itself a sufficient basis to secure the finding of an anti-doping rule violation, but only for the bringing of a case – which means that there is a likelihood, and not necessarily a certainty, of a violation. Indeed, Substantial Assistance may also result in “discovering” an anti-doping rule violation – irrespective of its subsequent “establishment”, for which additional elements (such as a hearing of the accused) may be needed. In summary, concrete (and not merely speculative) information must be provided, which (at least) would be considered sufficient to bring a case – even though this information, however important, might need further corroboration in order to secure a finding against another person.

4. A finding of Substantial Assistance may only entail the suspension of a portion of the ineligibility period, and not the reduction of the sanction. In other words, the deciding body cannot directly impose a reduced sanction, it has to impose the full ineligibility period to be served for the anti-doping rule violation, and then suspend a portion of such period.

5. The criteria to be considered in the determination of the extent to which the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility may be suspended are i) the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation; and ii) the significance of the Substantial Assistance rendered, provided however that iii) no more than three-quarters of the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility may be suspended. In connection with the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation, any performance-enhancing benefit which the person providing Substantial Assistance may be likely to still enjoy must be considered, while in the assessment of the importance of the Substantial Assistance, a) the number of individuals implicated, b) the status of those individuals in the sport, c) whether a scheme of trafficking under Article 2.7 or administration under Article 2.8 of the WADC was involved, and d) whether the violation involved a substance or method which is not readily detectible in testing, are to be taken into account. As a general matter, the earlier in the results management process the Substantial Assistance is provided, the greater the percentage of the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility may be suspended. The maximum suspension of the ineligibility period shall only be applied in very exceptional cases.

---

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.

As a result in March 2021 the International Football Federation (FIFA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Vladimir Obukhov for the use of the prohibited substance Metandienone in March 2013. After notification the Athlete admitted the violaton and provided substantial assistance to FIFA.

The Athlete provided evidence to FIFA about players of the Football Club Torpedo Moscow under instructions using medical products administered by medical personel. Following a Cooperation Agreement the FIFA Disciplinary Committee decided on 14 July 2021 to impose a reduced 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in September 2021 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the FIFA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibilty on the Athlete.

WADA finds that in this case there is no dispute that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation attracting a period of ineligibility of two years. The only issue to be decided within these appeal proceedings is whether any part of the applicable two-year period of ineligibility could be suspended based on the Substantial Assistance provision set by the 2012 FIFA ADR.

WADA contended that this should be answered in the negative. Therefore, it requests the Panel to set aside the Decision and impose on the Athlete a period of ineligibility of two years.

FIFA and the Athlete argued that the Appealed Decision was correctly adopted, with full regard for the specificities of the case and with a sanction that is just and proportionate.

In light of the Parties’ submissions and requests, the Panel assessed and addressed the following issues:

• did the Athlete provide Substantial Assistance within the meaning of the FIFA ADR?
• if he did, is the Athlete entitled to a “reduction” or to a “suspension” of the otherwise applicable ineligibility period? If so, in what measure?
• if he did not, what are the consequences to be drawn?

The Panel confirms that FIFA’s finding that the cooperation given by the Athlete amounted to Substantial Assistance under Article 20 of the FIFA ADR. The challenge brought in this respect by WADA to the Decision is to be dismissed.

The Panel deems finds that the period of ineligibility to be imposed on the Athlete should be suspended only in the measure of 12 months. Even though the Substantial Assistance did not lead to any further proceedings, it concerned an anti-doping rule violation occurring 8 years before it was rendered, it was promptly given as soon as the Athlete received a notification of his potential anti-doping rule violation, it concerned the practice of a doctor, i.e. of an individual having peculiar responsibilities within a football club, it exposed a potential violation that could involve a number of other players and individuals.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 June 2022 that:

1. The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) on 8 September 2021 against the decision rendered by the Disciplinary Committee of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) on 14 July 2021 in the matter concerning Mr Vladimir Obukhov is partially granted.
2. The decision rendered by the Disciplinary Committee of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) on 14 July 2021 is modified as follows:
   
   

   1. Mr Vladimir Obukhov is declared ineligible for a period of twenty-four (24) months starting the date of this Award, with credit given for the period of suspension already served from 2 June 2021 to 2 December 2021.
   
   2. The remaining ineligibility period imposed on Mr Vladimir Obukhov is suspended in a measure of 12 months on the basis of the Substantial Assistance provided pursuant to the Cooperation Agreement signed by Mr Obukhov and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).
   
   

3. The Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which is retained by the CAS.
4. (…).
5. All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2021/ADD/37 International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Ekaterina Katina

• Weightlifting
• Doping (DHCMT)
• Evidence of the Anti-Doping Rule Violation
• Aggravating circumstances warranting an increase of the period of ineligibility
• Disqualification of result and fairness exception

---

1. To establish an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) under Article 2.2. of the 2012 IWF Anti-Doping Policy (ADP), the IWF may base itself on any reliable means of evidence. This comprises a statement from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) including evidence such as among other the national Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) data secured by WADA Intelligence & Investigations Department (WADA I&I). Moreover, the uncontested detection of a prohibited substance in an athlete’s sample establishes the use of a prohibited substance.

2. Pursuant to Article 10.2. of the 2012 IWF ADP, the standard period of ineligibility for the use of a prohibited substance is two years unless as provided by Article 10.6 of the 2012 IWF ADP, there are aggravating circumstances warranting an increase of the ineligibility period up to four years. The fact for an athlete to test positive for a substance which appears on the prohibited list under class S1 “Anabolic Agents”, to commit multiple ADRVs over the course of several years and to be part of a national anti-detection scheme are aggravating circumstances.

3. Pursuant to the applicable IWF ADP, the disqualification of results is the main rule and the “fairness exception” is only an exception. However, results may remain valid if fairness so requires in the circumstances of each case. Among the factors assessed in the application of the fairness test are the athlete’s degree of fault, the affected sporting results, significant consequences of disqualification of results, Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP), specific issues, additional ineligibility period in the second instance, delays in results management, the overall length of the disqualification and longer periods of disqualification specifically associated with re-testing.

---

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.

As a result in April 2021 the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ekaterina Katina for the use of the prohibited substance Metenolone in June and October 2012 and in December 2014.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered while the Athlete failed to respond. Thereupon in October 2021 the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure.

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

• the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• there are aggravating circumstances in this case;
• there is no fairness exception regarding disqualification of results; and
• the period of disqualification shall be from 22 June 2012 until 1 December 2018.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 June 2022 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by the International Weightlifting Federation on 21 October 2021 is upheld.

2.) Ekaterina Katina is found to have committed anti-doping rule violations under Article 2.2 and Article 2.2.1 of the 2012 IWF ADP.

3.) Ekaterina Katina is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four years starting on the date on which the CAS award enters into force. The period of ineligibility served during the period of provisional suspension imposed on Ms Ekaterina Katina from 14 April 2021 through the date of the present Award shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Ekaterina Katina from and including 22 June 2012 until 1 December 2018 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes).

(…)

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

CAS 2021/A/8012 Natalya Antyukh v. World Athletics (WA)

Related case:

CAS 2020_O_6759 World Athletics vs RusAF & Natalya Antyukh
April 7, 2021

---

• Athletics (sprint & hurdles)
• Doping (methasterone, boldenone, desoxymethyltestosterone, oxabolone, DHEA, 1-testosterone)
• Discretion of a CAS panel to exclude evidence under Article R57 para. 3 of the CAS Code
• Standard of proof
• Methods of establishing facts
• Assessment of circumstantial evidence
• Lex mitior
• Principle of fairness

---

1. In the appropriate circumstances, a CAS panel has the discretion to exclude evidence. It must be remembered, however, that such discretion should be exercised with restraint in order to preserve the de novo character of the CAS appeal proceedings and should be limited to those circumstances where the new material is adduced in an abusive way or with some measure of bad faith, for example, where the evidence is in hand at the first instance hearing but is withheld for strategic purposes and adduced for the first time on appeal.

2. The “comfortable satisfaction” standard is lower than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt but higher than other civil standards such as the balance of probabilities. To reach this comfortable satisfaction, a CAS panel should have in mind the seriousness of allegation which is made. It follows that this standard of proof is a kind of sliding scale, based on the allegations at stake: the more serious the allegation and its consequences, the higher certainty (level of proof) the panel would require to be “comfortably satisfied”. It should be borne in mind, however, that, contrary to what is often asserted, the standard itself does not change; it is the required cogency of the evidence that changes on the basis that the more serious the allegations (a) the less likely that the alleged fact or event has occurred and (b) the more serious the consequences. The standard of proof, however, remains to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations.

3. Rule 33.3 of the IAAF 2013 Anti-Doping Regulations provides that facts related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means. This rule is not a requirement that the evidence adduced be ‘reliable evidence’ (whatever that might mean). Rather, it is a rule as to the method or manner or form in which the facts that are necessary to sustain an allegation of an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) may be established. The rule provides (in a non-exhaustive list) a number of examples of means of establishing facts which are characterised as ‘reliable’.

4. In case there is no direct evidence of use by an athlete, the CAS panel must assess all the circumstantial evidence separately and together and must have regard to what is sometimes called ‘the cumulative weight’ of the evidence. It is in the nature of circumstantial evidence that single items of evidence may each be capable of an innocent explanation but, taken together, establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, there may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion: but the whole taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilt, that is, with as much certainty as human affairs can require or admit of.

5. The principle of lex mitior does not permit one to pick and choose between the most favourable individual provisions from different sets of rules; such would indeed offend against the principle of legality.

6. A rule is subject to a ‘general principle of fairness’ which provides a discretion on the part of a tribunal to modify the application of the rule where to apply it strictly would be unfair.

---

Ms. Natalya Antyukh is a Russian Athlete competing at the 2012 London Olympic Games and at the 2011 World Championships in Daegu. She retired from professional sport and competition in 2017.

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.

Based on the findings of the McLaren Reports the Athletics Integrity (AIU) on behalf on World Athletics reported in May 2019 anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete. In this matter the disclosed evidence (the Moscow Washout Schedules) listed 4 samples, provided by the Athlete, in which the presence had been established of the substances 1-Testosterone, Boldenone, Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone,  Desoxymethyltestosterone, Methasterone and Oxabolone.

In December 2019 the Athlete's case was referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance procedure and thereupon a 4 year period of ineligibility was imposed on the Athlete on 7 April 2021.

Hereafter in May 2021 the Athlete appealed the first instance decision with the CAS Appeals Division and requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision.

The Athlete denied the use of prohibited substances, nor that she had provided unofficial samples, while she officially was tested before without issues. She asserted that World Athletics failed to discharge its burden on the evidence and that the alleged anti-doping rule violations were unproved.

Further she disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by World Athletics, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov and pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence.

The AIU contended that there are aggravating circumstances in this case because the Athlete was engaged in the washout testing program which was part of a doping plan or scheme. The Moscow Washout Schedules showed that in 2013 the Athlete had provided 4 unofficial samples and that she had used 6 different prohibited substances in a one month period.

After assessment of the evidence the Panel is comfortably satisfied that, during the period on or about 30 June 2013 to and including on or about 25 July 2013, the Athlete used the prohibited substances Methasterone, Boldenone, Desoxymethyltestosterone, Oxabolone, Prasterone (DHEA) and 1-testosterone.

The Panel agrees that there are aggravating circumstances in this case and that a period of 4 years is a proportionate sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 June 2022 that:

1. The appeal filed by Ms Natalia Antyukh on 21 May 2021 against the Award issued by the CAS Court Office on 7 April 2021 is partially upheld.
2. Ms Natalia Antyukh is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 32.2 of the IAAF Competition Rules 2012-2013.
3. Ms Natalia Antyukh is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting from (and including) 7 April 2021.
4. All competitive results achieved by Ms Natalya Antyukh from 30 June 2013 through to and including 31 December 2015 are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.
5. The costs, to be determined and served separately to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne in the proportions 90% (ninety percent) by Ms Natalya Antyukh and 10% (ten percent) by World Athletics.
6. Each Party shall bear its own costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.
7. All other or further requests for relief are hereby dismissed.

CAS 2021/A/7840 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. International Canoe Federation (ICF) & Aleksandra Dupik

• Canoeing
• Doping (furosemide)
• Use of a prohibited substance
• Standard of proof
• Methods of proof
• Circumstantial evidence
• Reduction of the period of disqualification in the interests of fairness

---

1. It is made clear by Article 2.2.1 of the ICF 2009 Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR) that, because it is every athlete’s duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body, it is not necessary to show that any use on the part of an athlete was intentional or knowing, or that an athlete was at fault in some way or that he or she failed to take due care (i.e., was negligent).

2. The standard of proof of comfortable satisfaction is greater than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The more serious the allegation, the more cogent the supporting evidence must be in order for the allegation to be found proven. However, contrary to what is often asserted, the standard itself does not change; it is the required cogency of the evidence that changes on the basis that the more serious the allegations (a) the less likely that the alleged fact or event has occurred and (b) the more serious the consequences. The standard of proof remains to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations.

3. As a general rule, facts relating to anti-doping rule violations (ADRV) may (i.e., it is permissible) be established by “any reliable means”. This rule gives greater leeway to anti-doping organisations to prove violations, so long as they can comfortably satisfy a tribunal that the means of proof is reliable. As a result, it is not even necessary that a violation be proven by a scientific test itself. Instead, a violation may be proved through admissions, testimony of witnesses, or other documentation evidencing a violation. This rule is not a requirement that the evidence adduced be “reliable evidence”. Rather, it is a rule as to the method or manner or form in which the facts that are necessary to sustain an allegation of an ADRV may be established, and the rule provides (in a non-exhaustive list) a number of examples of means of establishing facts which are characterised as “reliable”.

4. In case there is no direct but only circumstantial evidence, the adjudicatory body must assess the evidence separately and together and must have regard to what is sometimes called “the cumulative weight” of the evidence. It is in the nature of circumstantial evidence that single items of evidence may each be capable of an innocent explanation but, taken together, establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion, but the whole taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilt.

5. Article 10.8 of the ICF 2009 ADR provides that all competitive results achieved by the athlete from the date that a positive sample was collected or other ADRV was committed through to the start of the period of ineligibility is to be disqualified with all of the resulting consequences as there set forth – unless fairness requires otherwise. Indeed in certain exceptional circumstances, the strict application of the disqualification rule can produce an unjust result. In particular, this may be the case when the potential disqualification period covers a very long term, which is normally the case when the facts leading to the ADRV took place long before the adjudicating proceedings started which usually occurs when they are opened as a result of the re-testing of a sample or of the uncover of a sophisticated doping scheme. In addition, in this type of cases it may be difficult to prove that the athlete at stake used prohibited substances or methods during such a long period of time.

---

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 Furosemide had been established in the sample of the Athlete Aleksandra Dupik. This sample was provided by the Athlete in April 2014 and thereupon deliberately reported as negative by the Moscow laboratory.

However the ICF concluded that there was insufficient direct evidence that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and decided on 11 March 2021 not to bring forward this case.

Hereafter in March 2021 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the ICF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete from 2 to 4 years.

WADA contended that the evidence in relation to the Athlete's samples clearly showed that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that the decision by the ICF not to move forward with this matter was manifestly wrong.

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

There was no pleaded challenge to the manner in which the ICF conducted itself in coming to its decision, only that its decision was wrong. The appeal was therefore conducted by the Parties as an inquiry into whether the evidence was sufficient to establish, to the applicable standard of proof, that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and not as to whether the ICF had met its investigation obligations under its anti-doping rules and related international standards.

Following assessment of all evidence provided by the Parties, the Panel concludes as follows:

• There was a systemic cover-up and manipulation of the doping control process within Russia in the manner described by Prof. McLaren in the McLaren Reports, commonly referred to as the Russian doping scheme.
• The Moscow Laboratory performed both initial testing procedures and confirmation procedures on the Sample, the results of which showed the presence of the diuretic, Furosemide.
• Furosemide is a prohibited substance.
• In furtherance of the Russian doping scheme, and in order to protect the Athlete from the consequences of the positive test result, the Moscow Laboratory recorded the analytical results of the Sample in ADAMS as negative.
• In relation therefore to the ADRV allegations in this matter, the Panel concludes that, upon taking the evidence as a whole and assessing its cumulative weight, the Panel is comfortably satisfied that, on or about 19 April 2014, the Athlete used a prohibited substance (namely, Furosemide) in violation of Article 2.2(b) of the 2009 ICF ADR.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 9 June 2022 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 1 April 2021 against the International Canoe Federation and Ms Aleksandra Dupik with respect to the decision rendered by the International Canoe Federation on 11 March 2021 is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered on 11 March 2021 by the International Canoe Federation in the matter of Ms Aleksandra Dupik is set aside.

3.) Ms Aleksandra Dupik is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.2 of the International Canoe Federation’s 2009 Anti-Doping Rules.

4.) Ms Aleksandra Dupik is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of two (2) years starting from the date of this Award.

5.) All competitive results achieved by Ms Aleksandra Dupik from 19 April 2014 through to and including 31 December 2016 are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

6.) (…).

7.) (…).

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

CAS 2021/A/7839 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. International Canoe Federation (ICF) & Nikolay Lipkin

• Canoeing (kayak)
• Doping (Trenbolone/Metenolone/Oxandrolone)
• Use of a prohibited substance
• Standard of proof
• Methods of proof
• Circumstantial evidence
• Aggravating circumstances
• Reduction of the period of disqualification in the interests of fairness

---

1. It is made clear by Article 2.2.1 of the ICF 2009 Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR) that, because it is every athlete’s duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body, it is not necessary to show that any use on the part of an athlete was intentional or knowing, or that an athlete was at fault in some way or that he or she failed to take due care (i.e., was negligent).

2. The standard of proof of comfortable satisfaction is greater than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The more serious the allegation, the more cogent the supporting evidence must be in order for the allegation to be found proven. However, contrary to what is often asserted, the standard itself does not change; it is the required cogency of the evidence that changes on the basis that the more serious the allegations (a) the less likely that the alleged fact or event has occurred and (b) the more serious the consequences. The standard of proof remains to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations.

3. As a general rule, facts relating to anti-doping rule violations (ADRV) may (i.e., it is permissible) be established by “any reliable means”. This rule gives greater leeway to anti-doping organisations to prove violations, so long as they can comfortably satisfy a tribunal that the means of proof is reliable. As a result, it is not even necessary that a violation be proven by a scientific test itself. Instead, a violation may be proved through admissions, testimony of witnesses, or other documentation evidencing a violation. This rule is not a requirement that the evidence adduced be “reliable evidence”. Rather, it is a rule as to the method or manner or form in which the facts that are necessary to sustain an allegation of an ADRV may be established, and the rule provides (in a non-exhaustive list) a number of examples of means of establishing facts which are characterised as “reliable”.

4. In case there is no direct but only circumstantial evidence, the adjudicatory body must assess the evidence separately and together and must have regard to what is sometimes called “the cumulative weight” of the evidence. It is in the nature of circumstantial evidence that single items of evidence may each be capable of an innocent explanation but, taken together, establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion, but the whole taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilt.

5. There are aggravating circumstances if an athlete participated in a doping plan or scheme to commit anti-doping rule violations and also engaged in deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid the detection of an anti-doping rule violation.

6. Article 10.8 of the ICF 2009 ADR provides that all competitive results achieved by the athlete from the date that a positive sample was collected or other ADRV was committed through to the start of the period of ineligibility is to be disqualified with all of the resulting consequences as there set forth – unless fairness requires otherwise. Indeed in certain exceptional circumstances, the strict application of the disqualification rule can produce an unjust result. In particular, this may be the case when the potential disqualification period covers a very long term, which is normally the case when the facts leading to the ADRV took place long before the adjudicating proceedings started which usually occurs when they are opened as a result of the re-testing of a sample or of the uncover of a sophisticated doping scheme. In addition, in this type of cases it may be difficult to prove that the athlete at stake used prohibited substances or methods during such a long period of time.

---

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 Metenolone, Oxandrolone and Trenbolone had been established in the 2 samples of the Athlete Nikolay Lipkin. These samples were provided by the Athlete in June 2014 and thereupon deliberately reported as negative by the Moscow laboratory.

However the ICF concluded that there was insufficient direct evidence that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and decided on 11 March 2021 not to bring forward this case.

Hereafter in March 2021 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the ICF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete from 2 to 4 years.

WADA contended that the evidence in relation to the Athlete's samples clearly showed that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that the decision by the ICF not to move forward with this matter was manifestly wrong.

There was no pleaded challenge to the manner in which the ICF conducted itself in coming to its decision, only that its decision was wrong. The appeal was therefore conducted by the Parties as an inquiry into whether the evidence was sufficient to establish, to the applicable standard of proof, that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and not as to whether the ICF had met its investigation obligations under its anti-doping rules and related international standards.

Following assessment of all of the evidence provided by the Parties, the Panel concludes as follows:

• There was a systemic cover-up and manipulation of the doping control process within Russia in the manner described by Prof. McLaren in the McLaren Reports, commonly referred to as the Russian doping scheme.
• The Moscow Laboratory performed initial testing procedures (ITP) on the Samples, the results of which showed the (presumptive) presence of the anabolic steroids Trenbolone, Metenolone and Oxandrolone.
• Each of these substances is a prohibited substance.
• In furtherance of the Russian doping scheme, and in order to protect the Athlete from the consequences of positive test results, the Moscow Laboratory did not go on to conduct the confirmation procedure to confirm the presence and/or concentration and/or origin of these substances but, instead, falsely recorded the analytical results of the Samples in the ADAMS as negative.
• In relation therefore to the ADRV allegations in this matter, the Panel concludes that, upon taking the evidence as a whole and assessing its cumulative weight, the Panel is comfortably satisfied that, on or about 5 June 2014 and on or about 19 June 2014, the Athlete used prohibited substances (namely, Trenbolone, Oxandrolone and Metenolone) in violation of Article 2.2(b) of the ICF 2009 ADR.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 9 June 2022 that:

1.) The appeal filed by of the World Anti-Doping Agency on 9 June 2021 against the International Canoe Federation and Mr Nikolay Lipkin with respect to the decision rendered on 11 March 2021 by the International Canoe Federation is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered on 11 March 2021 by the International Canoe Federation in the matter of Mr Nikolay Lipkin is set aside.

3.) Mr Nikolay Lipkin is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.2 of the International Canoe Federation’s 2009 Anti-Doping Rules.

4. Mr Nikolay Lipkin is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting from the date of this Award, subject to any period of provisional suspension already served.

5.) All competitive results achieved by Mr Nikolay Lipkin from 5 June 2014 through to and including 31 December 2016 are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

6.) (…).

7.) (…).

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

CAS 2021/A/7838 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. International Canoe Federation (ICF) & Aleksandr Dyachenko

Related case:

CAS OG_2016_19 Natalia Podolskaya & Alexander Dyachenko vs ICF
August 8, 2016

---

• Canoeing (kayak)
• Doping (trenbolone/metenolone)
• Use of a prohibited substance
• Standard of proof
• Methods of proof
• Circumstantial evidence
• Aggravating circumstances
• Reduction of the period of disqualification in the interests of fairness

---

1. It is made clear by Article 2.2.1 of the ICF 2009 Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR) that, because it is every athlete’s duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body, it is not necessary to show that any use on the part of an athlete was intentional or knowing, or that an athlete was at fault in some way or that he or she failed to take due care (i.e., was negligent).

2. The standard of proof of comfortable satisfaction is greater than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The more serious the allegation, the more cogent the supporting evidence must be in order for the allegation to be found proven. However, contrary to what is often asserted, the standard itself does not change; it is the required cogency of the evidence that changes on the basis that the more serious the allegations (a) the less likely that the alleged fact or event has occurred and (b) the more serious the consequences. The standard of proof remains to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations.

3. As a general rule, facts relating to anti-doping rule violations (ADRV) may (i.e., it is permissible) be established by “any reliable means”. This rule gives greater leeway to anti-doping organisations to prove violations, so long as they can comfortably satisfy a tribunal that the means of proof is reliable. As a result, it is not even necessary that a violation be proven by a scientific test itself. Instead, a violation may be proved through admissions, testimony of witnesses, or other documentation evidencing a violation. This rule is not a requirement that the evidence adduced be “reliable evidence”. Rather, it is a rule as to the method or manner or form in which the facts that are necessary to sustain an allegation of an ADRV may be established, and the rule provides (in a non-exhaustive list) a number of examples of means of establishing facts which are characterised as “reliable”.

4. In case there is no direct but only circumstantial evidence, the adjudicatory body must assess the evidence separately and together and must have regard to what is sometimes called “the cumulative weight” of the evidence. It is in the nature of circumstantial evidence that single items of evidence may each be capable of an innocent explanation but, taken together, establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion, but the whole taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilt.

5. There are aggravating circumstances if an athlete participated in a doping plan or scheme to commit anti-doping rule violations and also engaged in deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid the detection of an anti-doping rule violation.

6. Article 10.8 of the ICF 2009 ADR provides that all competitive results achieved by the athlete from the date that a positive sample was collected or other ADRV was committed through to the start of the period of ineligibility is to be disqualified with all of the resulting consequences as there set forth – unless fairness requires otherwise. Indeed in certain exceptional circumstances, the strict application of the disqualification rule can produce an unjust result. In particular, this may be the case when the potential disqualification period covers a very long term, which is normally the case when the facts leading to the ADRV took place long before the adjudicating proceedings started which usually occurs when they are opened as a result of the re-testing of a sample or of the uncover of a sophisticated doping scheme. In addition, in this type of cases it may be difficult to prove that the athlete at stake used prohibited substances or methods during such a long period of time.

---

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 Metenolone and Trenbolone had been established in the 2 samples of the Athlete Alesandr Dyachenko. These samples were provided by the Athlete in 2014 and thereupon deliberately reported as negative by the Moscow laboratory.

However the ICF concluded that there was insufficient direct evidence that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and decided on 11 March 2021 not to bring forward this case.

Hereafter in March 2021 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the ICF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete from 2 to 4 years.

WADA contended that the evidence in relation to the Athlete's samples clearly showed that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that the decision by the ICF not to move forward with this matter was manifestly wrong.

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

There was no pleaded challenge to the manner in which the ICF conducted itself in coming to its decision, only that its decision was wrong. The appeal was therefore conducted by the Parties as an inquiry into whether the evidence was sufficient to establish, to the applicable standard of proof, that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and not as to whether the ICF had met its investigation obligations under its anti-doping rules and related international standards.

Following assessment of all of the evidence provided by the Parties, the Panel concludes as follows:

• There was a systemic cover-up and manipulation of the doping control process within Russia in the manner described by Prof. McLaren in the McLaren Reports, commonly referred to as the Russian doping scheme.
• The Athlete was a protected athlete within the Russian doping scheme.
• The Moscow Laboratory performed initial testing procedures on the Samples, the results of which showed the (presumptive) presence of the anabolic steroids Epitrenbolone (a metabolite of Trenbolone) in Sample No.1 and Epitrenbolone and 16a-hydroxy-1-methyl-5a-androst-1-ene-3,17-dione (a metabolite of Metenolone) in Sample No.2.
• Each of these substances is a prohibited substance.
• In furtherance of the Russian doping scheme, and in order to protect the Athlete from the consequences of positive test results, the Moscow Laboratory did not go on to conduct the confirmation procedure to confirm the presence and/or concentration and/or origin of these substances but, instead, recorded the analytical results of the Samples in the Anti-Doping Administration & Management System (ADAMS) as negative.
• In relation therefore to the ADRV allegations in this matter, the Panel concludes that, upon taking the evidence as a whole and assessing its cumulative weight, the Panel is comfortably satisfied that, on or about 5 June 2014 and on or about 3 August 2014, the Athlete used prohibited substances (namely, Trenbolone and Metenolone) in violation of Article 2.2(b) of the ICF 2009 ADR.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 9 June 2022 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 1 April 2021 against the International Canoe Federation and Mr Aleksandr Dyachenko with respect to the decision rendered on 11 March 2021 by the International Canoe Federation is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered on 11 March 2021 by the International Canoe Federation in the matter of Mr Aleksandr Dyachenko is set aside.

3.) Mr Aleksandr Dyachenko is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.2 of the International Canoe Federation’s 2009 Anti-Doping Rules.

4.) Mr Aleksandr Dyachenko is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting from the date of this Award, subject to any period of provisional suspension already served by Mr Aleksandr Dyachenko.

5.) All competitive results achieved by Mr Aleksandr Dyachenko from 5 June 2014 through to and including 31 December 2016 are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

6.) (…).

7.) (…).

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