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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.) (…).

7.) (…).

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

In July 2021 and in August 2021 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of World Triathlon, reported anti-doping rule violations against the Ukrainian Athlete Yulia Yelistratova. The ITA established that her samples, provided in June 2021 in Ukrain and in July 2021 in Japan, tested positive for the prohibited substance Recombinant Erythropoietin (RhEPO).

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and did not accept the sanction proposed by the ITA.

Thereupon the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure. The Athlete requested for a reduced sanction, whereas the ITA requested for the imposition of a 6 year period of ineligibility.

At first the Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and assumed that the Covid-19 vaccination could have effected her heamatological profile. After the second notification in August 2021 she admitted the violations and accepted the test results.

The Athlete alleged that she most likely had been a victim of sabotage by a Russian person claiming to be a doctor. She acknowledged that she had injected herself with supplements 35 times during 7 weeks.

The ITA contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that these violations were not intentional, nor did she prove with evidence that she was the victim of fraud or sabotage. The ITA deemed that she acted highly recklessly and negligently with grounds for aggravating circumstances.

After assessment of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator determines that:

• The Athlete wanted to improve her sporting performance in relation to the Tokyo Olympics;
• The violation happened 35 times in terms of multiple use and the circumstances of the case;
• Her samples tested positive for a prohibited substance and accordingly she committed multiple anti-doping rule violation;
• There is no corroborating evidence that proves that she is the victim of fraud or sabotage;
• She failed to demonstrate that these violations were not intentional;
• There are aggravating circumstances present in this case that justifies the imposition of a more severe sanction;
• There are no grounds that she provided substantial assisstance in this case.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 4 July 2023 that:

1.) The Request for arbitration filed by the International Testing Authority (ITA) on behalf of the World Triathlon on 14 September 2022 against Ms. Yulia Yelistratova is partially upheld.

2.) Ms. Yulia Yelistratova committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation in accordance with the Article 2.1 of the TRI Anti-Doping Rules.

3.) In accordance with the Articles 10.9.3., 10.2. and 10.4. of the TRI Anti-Doping Rules, Ms. Yulia Yelistratova is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of five (5) years starting from the date of this Award.

4.) Ms. Yulia Yelistratova shall receive credit for period of Provisional Suspension served from 25 July 2021 against the period of ineligibility imposed by this Award.

5.) Ms. Yulia Yelistratova’s results from the 2021 Europe Triathlon Cup Dnipro are disqualified, along with all other consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

6.) (…).

7.) (…).

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

2022/ADD/49 International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Yunder Beytula

In June 2021 and August 2021 the International Testing Agency, on behalf of the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF), reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Bulgarian weightlifter Yunder Beytula. The IWF charged the Athlete with the following violations:

• tampering with the doping control process by purposely providing false Whereabouts information to the IWF in order to obtain advance notice of forthcoming anti-doping controls;
• refusal to submit to sample collection; and
• after being notified and provisionally suspended, testing positive for human growth hormone (hGH).

In June 2022 the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure.

Previously in January 2014 the Athlete had been sanctioned for 2 years after he tested positive for the banned substances Stanozolol and Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone.

Doping Control Officers (DCO) established in October 2019 and in November 2019 that the Athlete was not present at the house of his parents, because he had moved to the city of Dobrich. The Athlete had not updated his Whereabouts address in ADAMS, yet when called he timely arrived and provided a sample.

In December 2020 the DCO went directly to the Athlete's address in Dobrich where the he provided a sample. On all three occasions he was instructed to update his Whereabouts location in ADAMS.

In December 2020 two DCOs went directly to the Athlete's address in Dobrich despite he had failed to update his Whereabouts location in ADAMS. This time the Athlete responded angry and agitated and told the DCOs to come back one hour later of in the evening.

When the DCOs returned to the Athlete's address one hour later the he failed to respond to the doorbell, nor responded to the telephone calls. The DCOs reported that they clearly heard the presence of the Athlete inside the apartment.

Consequently in June 2021 a provisional suspension was ordered because the Athlete had tampered with the Doping Control. Thereupon in July 2021 the Athlete's A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance human Growth Hormone (hGH).

The Athlete denied that he purposely had provided wrong  Whereabouts information to the IWF. Futher he explained his conduct at his apartment in December 2020 and alleged that the DCOs never had returned, neither had called him.

The ITF contended that not only had the Athlete committed a second anti-doping rule violation, he also committed a third anti-doping rule violation after he had been notified and provisionally suspended. The ITF argued that he acted intentionally and by contrast failed to demonstrate that these violations were not intentional.

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

• The Athlete had Tampered with the Doping Control Process and accordingly committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• In December 2020 he Refused or, at the very least, Failed to submit to Sample Collection and accordingly committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• The Presence of a prohibited substance had been established in his samples and accordingly he committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• The erroneous Whereabouts information on the ADAMS system was done knowingly by him.
• The Athlete acknowledged having opened the door to the DCOs, recognizing who they were and did not challenge having been notified of the doping control.
• He has not compelling justification for his failure to allow the DCOs to enter his apartment, nor for not opening the door one hour later, nor for not answering their phone calls.
• His second anti-doping rule violations shall be considered together as one single violation.
• After being notified and provisionally suspended he committed a third anti-doping rule violation for the presence of a prohibited substance.
• He failed to demonstrate that these violations were not committed intentionally.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 November 2023 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by the International Weightlifting Federation on 17 June 2022 against Mr Yunder Beytula is upheld.

2.) Mr Yunder Beytula is found to have committed one or multiple anti-doping rule violations for Tampering or Attempted Tampering with the doping control process pursuant to Article 2.5 of the 2019 IWF Anti-Doping Rules.

3.) Mr Yunder Beytula is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation for Refusal or Failure to Submit to sample collection pursuant to Article 2.3 of the 2019 IWF Anti-Doping Rules.

4.) Mr Yunder Beytula is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation for Presence of a Prohibited Substance in his systems pursuant to Article 2.1 of the 2021 IWF Anti-Doping Rules.

5.) Mr Yunder Beytula is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of eight (8) years for the anti-doping rule violations committee in 2019 pursuant to Articles 2.3 and 2.5 of the 2019 IWF Anti-Doping Rules, with effect from the date of this Award, with credit provided for the period of ineligibility served between 10 June 2021 and the date of this award.

6.) Mr Yunder Beytula is sanctioned with a lifetime period of ineligibility for the anti-doping rule violation committee in 2021 pursuant to Article 2.1 of the 2021 IWF Anti-Doping Rules.

7.) The periods of ineligibility shall be served consecutively.

8.) All competitive results obtained by Mr Yunder Beytula from and including 7 October 2019 and the date of 10 June 2021 are disqualified with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

9.) (…).

10.) (…).

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

• CAS 2023/A/9451 Association Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) v Ms Kamila Valieva
• CAS 2023/A/9455 International Skating Union (ISU) v Ms Kamila Valieva and The Russian Doping Agency
• CAS 2023/A/9456 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) and Ms Kamila Valieva

Related cases:

• CAS OG_2022_08 IOC, WADA, ISU vs RUSADA, Kamila Valieva & ROC
  February 17, 2022
• CAS OG_2022_11 United States Figure Skating Team vs IOC
  March 30, 2022
  
  

---

In February 2022 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva (15) after her sample, collected on 25 December 2021, tested positive for the prohibited substance Trimetazidine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered on 8 Februay 2022 and consequently the Athlete was prohibited from participation in the 2022 Beijing Olympic Games.

Yet, the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) decided on 9 February 2022 to lift the Athlete's provisional suspension as it deemed that under the Russian ADR and the WADC 2021 the minor Athlete is a Protected Person.

The DADC accepted the explanation and evidence that the prohibited substance entered the Athlete's system through the use of a contaminated product, i.e. the medication used by her grandfather.

Hereafter on 11 and 12 February the IOC, WADA and ISU appealed the DADC Decision of 9 February with the CAS Ad Hoc Division at the Beijing 2022 Olympic Games.

Nevertheless the CAS Ad Hoc Division dismissed the appeals and decides on 17 February 2022 that the Appealed Provisional Suspension regarding the Athlete should remain lifted.

---

On 24 January 2023 the RUSADA DADC rendered its final decision and concluded that the Athlete had acted with No Fault or Negligence and without the application of a period of ineligibility. The DADC disqualified her results at the Russian 2021 National Championships, but not her results at the Beijing 2022 Olympic Games.

Hereafter in February 2023 RUSADA, ISU and WADA appealed the DADC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

RUSADA, ISU and WADA contended that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation despite that she is a Protected Person. Accordingly they requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose an appropriate sanction on the Athlete based on her degree of Fault.

The Athlete accepted the test results and argued that she is a Protected Person. Further she objected the CAS jurisdiction in this case.

She asserted that the violation was not intentional and that she acted with utmost caution to keep clean. She was unaware that her grandfather was using a prohibited substance as a heart medication, thus she was unaware of the potentional risk of a contamination.

In this case the Panel assessed and addressed the evidence and issues raised by the Parties:

• CAS jurisdiction
• The anti-doping rule violation
• The sanctions
• Protected person
• Burdens and standards of proof
• Trimetazidine

Ultimately the Panel concludes:

• The Athlete failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that she did not commit the violation intentionally.
• Under the Russian ADR it is not open to the Panel to consider grounds for a reduced sanction.
• There had been substantial delays in the analytical process and in the results managment, which was not attributed to the Athlete.
• The Athlete is a honest, straightforward and credible witness.
• She certainly is not a cheat, nor that she cheated at the Russian 2021 National Championships, nor at the Beijing 2022 Olympic Games (or at any other time).

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 January 2024 that:

1. The Appeal filed on 14 February 2023 by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 9/2023 rendered on 24 January 2023 is upheld.
2. The Appeal filed on 20 February 2023 by the International Skating Union against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 9/2023 rendered on 24 January 2023 is upheld.
3. The Appeal filed on 21 February 2023 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 9/2023 rendered on 24 January 2023 is partially upheld.
4. The decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency No. 9/2023 rendered on 24 January 2023 is set aside.
5. Ms Kamila Valieva is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Clause 4.1 of the All-Russian Anti-Doping Rules of 24 June 2021.
6. A period of four (4) years ineligibility is imposed on Ms Kamila Valieva, starting on 25 December 2021. Any period of provisional suspension served by Ms Kamila Valieva shall be credited against the period of ineligibility imposed.
7. All competitive results of Ms Kamila Valieva from 25 December 2021 are disqualified, with all the resulting consequences (including forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, profits, prizes, and appearance money).
8. (…)
9. (…).
10. (…).
11. (…).
12. (…).
13. (…)
14. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

, to sanction the Athlete for 4 years

The Athlete in her defence argued that:

• The source of the inadvertent contamination has been established by the DADC after careful analysis, in connection with her interacton with her grandfather, who regularly takes the medicine Trimetazidine.
• The DADC correctly had acknowledged that the Athlete is a Protected Person due to her age;
• The DADC accepted that the Athlete would not have any competitive advantages by consuming the Trimetazidine based on the medical experts' testimonies.
• Under the Rules the conditions are met in order to lift the Provisional Suspension.

RUSADA contended that the analysis in the Stockholm Lab was delayed due to pandemic-related staff shortages and is confident that the Athlete will be able to complete her submission with respect of evidenc in the proceedings before CAS whereas she has a lesser burden of proof as a Protected Person.

The ROC asserted that in the present case concrete evidence showing the source of the contamination is not required (as the Athlete is a Protected Person) and are not available (due to the undue delay in the reporting of the adverse analytical finding by the Anti-Doping Laboratory). As a result the Panel must rely on circumstantial evidence and decide to confirm the Appealed Decision if the scenario submitted by the Athlete with regard to contamination with the Prohibited Substance is more likely that the different scenario of a voluntary ingestion.

The CAS Ad Hoc Panel holds that it is uncontested that the Athlete is clearly a Protected Person under the Russian ADR and that the WADC 2021 intends to give special treatment to the Protected Persons like the Athlete.

The Panel finds that in cases involving Protected Persons, their Provisional Suspensions should be evaluated as optional Provisional Suspensions under WADC 2021 Article 7.4.2 and its progeny.

The Panel determines that the Athlete was entitled to benefit from being subject to an optional Provisional Suspension as a Protected Person and that, under the facts and circumstances, the option not to impose a Provisional Suspension should have been exercised so that she would not be prevented to compete in the Games.

Further the Panel considers in this case:

• the length of time it took for the laboratory to submit its report of an AAF involving the Athlete;
• the timing of that relative to the conduct of the Women’s Single Skating event at the Games;
• the difficulty to be faced in the Athlete not being able in
  the current situation, right in the middle of the Games, to muster proof to support her defence of the ADRV being asserted against her;
• the relatively low level of the prohibited substance found
  in her sample;
• the fact that she has tested negative in multiple tests before;
• after the test in question the case she has attempted to muster on contamination whether in a product or through domestic contamination, and the likely low level of sanction
  she will face if found to have committed an ADRV.

The Panel deems that athletes should not be subject to the risk of serious harm occasioned by anti-doping authorities’ failure to function effectively at a high level of performance and in a manner designed to protect the integrity of the operation of the Games. Accordingly the Panel finds that the Provisional Suspension should remain lifted.

Therefore the CAS Ad Hoc Division decides on 17 February 2022:

1. The Ad Hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction to determine the Applications filed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and International Skating Union (ISU).
2. The Applications filed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and International Skating Union (ISU) are dismissed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAS 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.

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.