CAS 2018/A/5913 Sabina Ashirbayeva v. International Gymnastics Federation (FIG)

• Gymnastics (rhythmic)
• Doping (furosemide, hydrochlorothiazide, chlorothiazide)
• Athletes’ duty of care to avoid ingestion of prohibited substances
• Communication of an athlete’s admission to the competent sanctioning body
• Difference between a plea for mercy and a plea in mitigation

1. An athlete’s duty to take care to avoid an ingestion of prohibited substances axiomatically arises before ingestion, not after it. A breach of that duty cannot be cured by a prompt repentance and avoidance of repetition to which an appellant testifies.

2. While the applicable anti-doping rules do not expressly read that an athlete’s admission, to have any legal relevance, must be communicated to the relevant governing body as opposed to some unrelated third party, no contrary conclusion can be reached. It is an athlete’s duty to ensure that any such admission is communicated to it.

3. A plea for mercy invites a decision outside the relevant rules whereas a plea in mitigation invites a decision within them.

On 6 August 2018 the Disciplinary Committee of the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Kazakh Athlete Sabina Ashirbayeva for multiple anti-doping rule violations. Following notification in June 2018 the Athlete failed to respond to the charges, nor participated in the proceedings.

In this case the Athlete's 4 separate samples tested positive for prohibited substances:

• Furosemide in April 2017;
• Hydrochlorothiazide and Clorothiazide in April 2017
• Hydrochlorothiazide in June 2017;
• Furosemide in June 2017.

Hereafter in August 2018 the Athlete appealed the FIG Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). She requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and plead for a reduced sanction.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substances. She explained that these substances had been used as prescribed medication to relieve swelling in connenction with her disease.

She asserted that in June 2017 she had filed a voluntary early admission of her violations. She alleged that thereupon the sports officials failed to inform the FIG or WADA about this early admission.

The FIG accepted that the Athlete's violations were not intentional and to be considered as one single first violation. Further the FIG contended that the Athlete failed to establish that she had communicated a prompt admission.

Following assessment of the evidence and the Athlete's conduct in this case the Sole Arbitrator determines that:

• The Athlete's violation was not intentional;
• The Athlete already had received a reduced sanction of 2 years;
• She failed to establish that she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence;
• It was the Athlete's duty to ensure that any early admission was communicated to the FIG.
• The Athlete's plea for mercy invites a decision outside the relevant rules whereas a plea in mitigation invites a decision within them.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 March 2019 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Mrs Sabina Ashirbayeva (“the Appellant”) on 14th August 2018 against the decision rendered by Disciplinary Committee of the International Gymnastics Federation on 6th August 2018 is dismissed.

2.) The decision rendered by Disciplinary Committee of the International Gymnastics Federation on 6th August 2018 in the case related to Mrs Sabina Ashirbayeva is confirmed and upheld.

3.) (…).

4.) (…).

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

CAS 2021/O/8111 World Athletics (WA) v. Lebogang Shange

In December 2019 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics reported an anti-doping rule violation against the South African Athlete Lebogang Shange after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Trenbolone.

Following deliberations between the parties the Athlete was ultimately charged in June 2021 and the case was referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor the source of the prohibited substance. It did not accept his explanation that the level of Epitrenbolone in his sample was caused by his ingestion of 800g of stewed beef the night before the doping control.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. He asserted that he acted with No Fault of Negligence and claimed that contaminated meat was the source of the positive test.

Supported by expert witnesses, the Athlete argued that only a form of illicit or irregular use of Trenbolone on cattle, together with a misadministration of legal inspection requirements, could possible explain his positive test result. He also alleged that there were differences in the technical equipment and capabilities of detection of WADA-accredited laboratories.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel dismisses the Athlete's allegation that accredited laboratories apply different detection capability in order to establish an adverse analytical finding.

Further the Panel assessed and addresses 3 scenarios of illicit or irregular use of Trenbolone on cattle as a potentional explanation for the Epitrenbolone found in the Athlete's system. Nevertheless the Panel concludes that these 3 scenarios cannot explain the Athlete's positive test result:

• Scenario 1:The implant of more than one pellet of Trenbolone into cattle.
• Scenario 2: Slaughter of an animal earlier than the 70 days minimum period that should elapse after the Trenbolone implant.
• Scenario 3: Misplacement of a Trebolone implant into the cattle's muscle instead into the cattle's ear.

As a result the Panel finds that the Athlete could not demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, how the substance had entered his system, nor demonstrated the he acted unintentionally.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 March 2022 that:

1.) The Request for Arbitration filed by World Athletics on 18 May 2021 against Mr Lebogang Shange is upheld.

2.) Mr Lebogang Shange is found to have committed anti-doping rule violations pursuant to Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules in force from 1 November 2019.

3.) Mr Lebogang Shange is sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility, commencing on the date of the present Award. The period of ineligibility served during the period of provisional suspension imposed on Mr Lebogang Shange from 19 December 2019 until 7 June 2021 and from 30 June 2021 through the date of the present Award shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility.

4.) All the competitive results obtained by Mr Lebogang Shange from 4 November 2019 are disqualified, with all the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office by separate letter, shall be borne in their entirety by Mr Lebogang Shange.

6.) Each Party shall bear its own legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with the present arbitration procedure.

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

CAS 2020_O_6762 World Athletics vs RusAF & Yelena Soboleva

Ms Yelena Soboleva is a 38-year-old former middle-distance runner of lnternational-Level specialized in 1500 meters distance. She participated in the 2005 Helsinki and in the 2007 Osaka IAAF World Championship in Athletics, obtaining the
fourth and second position in the 1500 meters competition, respectively.

Previously in July 2008 the Athlete was sanctioned for 2 years and 9 months for a tampering violation including disqualification of her results.

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.

Furthermore in 2016 World Athletics decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected in 2007. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2007.

Consequently World Athletics reported in December 2016 and in May 2019 two anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete. Hereafter in February 2020 the World Athletics referred the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that the Athlete had committed 2 anti-doping rule violations in 2007 and in 2013:

• for the presence of Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol) in her 2007 sample; and
• for the use of Methasterone as a result of her participation in the Moscow Washout Testing.

World Athletics asserted that 4 unofficial samples were listed in the Moscow Washout Schedules as belonging to the Athlete, provided on 23 June 2013, 4, 8 and 27 July 2013. This would prove that the Athlete was part of a doping programme and that she had used Methasterone in the leadup to the 2013 Moscow World Championships.

Despite being duly invited to do so, RusAF did not file any submission. Also the Athlete did not engage in this procedure, nor filed any submission or provided any form of defence whatsoever in this arbitration.

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

• The presence of the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone has been established in the Athlete's 2007 sample and accordingly she committed an anti-doping rule violation under the 2007 Rules.
• It is undisputed that the Athlete featured in the Moscow Washouts Schedules, other than the fact that she was indeed engaged in a doping programme.
• The Moscow Washout Testing Schedules revealed that in summer 2013 the Athlete used Mathasterone and accordingly committed an anti-doping rule violation under the 2013 Rules.
• Due to the Athlete's sporting results from April 2007 until April 2011 had been already annulled it is fair and reasonable to disqualify her results obtained from June 2013 until 15 December 2016.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 April 2021 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics against the Russian Athletics Federation and Yelena Soboleva is upheld.

2.) Yelena Soboleva is found guilty of anti-doping rule violations under Rule 32.2 (a) of the IAAF Competition Rules 2006-2007 and under Rule 32.2 (b) of the IAAF Competition Rules 2012-2013.

3.) Yelena Soboleva is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of eight (8) years starting from the date of this award.

4.) All competitive results achieved by Yelena Soboleva from 23 June 2013 through the commencement of the Athlete's period of provisional suspension on 15 December 2016 are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any medals, titles, ranking points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The cost of the arbitration, to be determined and served on the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the Russian Athletics Federation.

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

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

CAS 2020/0/6761 World Athletics v. Russian Athletics Federation & Andrey Silnov

Related case:

World Athletics 2022 WA vs Andrey Silnov
January 18, 2023

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 Formestane, Metenolone and Methasterone had been established in the 2 samples of the Athlete Andrey Silnov. provided in 2013.

Consequently in May 2019 World Athletics reported anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for the use of these prohibited substances. In February 2020 the World Athletics referred the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that two unofficial samples were listed in the Moscow Washout Schedules as belonging to the Athlete, which would date from 8 and 18 July 2013. 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, the Athlete would have been using up to three prohibited substances: Methasterone, Methenolone and Formestane.

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

Despite being duly invited to do so, RusAF did not file any submission.

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, from which it can be inferred that the Athlete had used the prohibited substances Methasterone, Methenolone and Formestane between 8 July 2013 and 18 July 2013.
• There are several aggravating circumstances in this case that justify the imposition of the maximum sanction allowed.
• The retroactive disqualification of the Athlete's competitive results is fair end necessary to restore the integrity of all the sporting competitions and to protect the interest of the sport and of the rest of athletes.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 April 2021 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics against the Russian Athletics Federation and Andrey Silnov is upheld.

2.) Andrey Silnov is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 32.2(b) of the IAAF Competition Rules 2012-2013.

3.) Andrey Silnov is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years stmiing from the date of this award.

4.) All competitive results achieved by Andrey Silnov from 8 July 2013 through the commencement of the period of ineligibility are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The cost of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the Russian Athletics Federation.

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

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

CAS 2020/0/6760 World Athletics v. Russian Athletics Federation & Oksana Kondratyeva


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 4-Hydroxytestosterone, Boldenone and Oxabolone had been established in the 3 samples of the Athlete Oksana Kondratyeva provided in 2013.

Consequently in May 2019 World Athletics reported anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for the use of these prohibited substances. In February 2020 the World Athletics referred the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that 3 unofficial samples were listed in the Moscow Washout Schedules as belonging to the Athlete, which would date from 2, 18 and 25 July 2013. 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, the Athlete would have been using up to 3 prohibited substances: 4-Hydroxytestosterone, Boldenone and Oxabolone.

Despite being duly invited to do so, RusAF did not file any submission. Also the Athlete did not engage in this procedure, nor filed any submission or provided any form of defence whatsoever in this arbitration.

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

• The Athlete used prohibited substances within the Washout Testing Programme as part of a doping plan or scheme in the summer of 2013.
• The Moscow Washout Schedules showed that the Athlete had used the prohibited substances 4-Hydroxytestosterone, Boldenone and Oxabolone between 2 and 18 July 2013.
• There are several aggravating circumstances in this case that justify the imposition of the maximum sanction allowed.
• The retroactive disqualification of the Athlete's competitive results is fair end necessary to restore the integrity of all the sporting competitions and to protect the interest of the sport and of the rest of athletes.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 April 2021 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics against the Russian Athletics Federation and Oksana Kondratyeva is upheld.

2.) Oksana Kondratyeva is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 32.2 (b) of the IAAF Competition Rules 2012-2013.

3.) Oksana Kondratyeva is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting from the date of this award.

4.) All competitive results achieved by Oksana Kondratyeva from 2 July 2013 through the commencement of the period of ineligibility are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The cost of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the Russian Athletics Federation.

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

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

CAS 2020/O/6759 World Athletics v. Russian Athletic Federation & Natalya Antyukh

Related case:

CAS 2021_A_8012 Natalya Antyukh vs World Athletics
June 13, 2022

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 1-Testosterone, Boldenone, Desoxymethyltestosterone, Methasterone, Oxabolone and  Prasterone (DHEA) had been established in the 4 samples of the Athlete Natalya Antyuk provided in 2013.

Consequently in May 2019 World Athletics reported anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for the use of these prohibited substances. In February 2020 the World Athletics referred the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that 6 unofficial samples were listed in the Moscow Washout Schedules as belonging to the Athlete, which would date from 30 June 2013, 6 July 2013, 14 July 2013 and 25 July 2013. 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, the Athlete would have been using up to 6 prohibited substances: 1-Testosterone, Boldenone, Desoxymethyltestosterone, Methasterone, Oxabolone and  Prasterone (DHEA).

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

Despite being duly invited to do so, RusAF did not file any submission.

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, from which it can be inferred that the Athlete had used the prohibited substances 1-Testosterone, Boldenone, Desoxymethyltestosterone, Methasterone, Oxabolone and  Prasterone (DHEA) between 30 June 2013 and 25 July 2013.
• There are several aggravating circumstances in this case that justify the imposition of the maximum sanction allowed.
• The retroactive disqualification of the Athlete's competitive results is fair end necessary to restore the integrity of all the sporting competitions and to protect the interest of the sport and of the rest of athletes.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 April 2021 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics against the Russian Athletics Federation and Natalya Antyukh is upheld.

2.) Natalya Antyukh is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 32.2(b) of the IAAF Competition Rules 2012-2013.

3.) Natalya Antyukh is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting from the date of this award.

4.) All competitive results achieved by Natalya Antyukh from 30 June 2013 through the commencement of the period of ineligibility are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The cost of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the Russian Athletics Federation.

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

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

CAS 2017/A/5477 Aaron Sloan v. Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) & Baseball Australia (BA)

In April 2017 the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the baseball player Aaron Sloan after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance D-Methamfetamine.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and ASADA proposed a sanction of 4 years. However the Athlete failed to repond within the set deadline. On 30 November 2017 he was deemed to have admitted the violation, to have waived his right for a hearing and to have accepted the sanction of 4 years proposed by ASADA.

Hereafter in December 2017 the Athlete appealed the Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). He requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.

The Athlete admitted the recreational use of D-Methamfetamine and explained that the night before the competition he had consumed alcohol with friends and used the substance. He asserted that the use occurred out-of-competition and not within the relevant 12 hours before the competition the next day.

ASADA and Baseball Australia contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the use of D-Methamfetamine was not intentional, nor that it was used in a context unrelated sport performance. With expert evidence they challenged the Athlete's assertion that he had not used the substance within the relevant 12 hours prior to the competition.

Following assessment of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator concludes the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional. He could not demonstrate that the D-Methamfetamine was used out-of-competition nor in a context unrelated to sport performance.

Furthermore the Sole Arbitrator is satisfied that the Athlete has not discharged his onus of proving that he did not know there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and that he did not manifestly disregard that risk.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 12 October 2017 that:

1.) The Appeal filed by Mr Aaron Sloan on 21 December 2017 against the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and Baseball Australia concerning the decision of Baseball Australia rendered on 30 November 2017 is dismissed.

2.) The decision of Baseball Australia dated 30 November 2017 to impose a sanction of four years ineligibility upon Mr Aaron Sloan commencing on 26 April 2017 is confirmed.

(…)

5.) All further requests for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2017_A_5175 IAAF vs ADAK, Athletics Kenya & Benjamin Ngandu Ndegwa - Final Award

Related case:

CAS 2017_A_5175 IAAF vs ADAK, Athletics Kenya & Benjamin Ngandu Ndegwa - Partial Award
November 17, 2017

In July 2015 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Benjamin Ngandu Ndegwa after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone (Nandrolone).

On 13 April 2017 the Kenyan Sports Disputes Tribunal decided to impose a reduced 20 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 6 July 2015.

Hereafter in June 2017 the IAAF appealed the Kenyan decision of 13 April 2013 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The IAAF requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. He explained with evidence that he underwent medical treatment in a hospital in Kenya for his chronic conditions and had received prescribed medication including Sustanon containing Testosterone.

The IAAF contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor how the substance had entered his system. The IAAF had established that the Athlete had not received medical treatment in the hospital in Kenya, whereas the medical documents he had produced were falsifications.

Furthermore the alleged use of Sustanon containing Testosterone could not explain the presence of Nandrolone in his samples. Also the IAAF had determinded that the Athlete repeatedly had breached the accepted provisional suspension between february 2016 and February 2017.

In view of the evidence the Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Panel determines that some medical records of a physician and hospital in Kenya appeared to have been falsified.

The Panel is comfortably satisfied that the IAAF had met its burden of proof in establishing and anti-doping rule violation and that the Athlete failed to demonstrate lack of intention or provided any defence. Finally the Panel considers that, despite the accepted provisional suspension, the Athlete had participated in at least nine high level events.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 17 November 2017 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the International Association of Athletics Federations on 2 June 2017 is upheld.

2.) The Decision rendered by the Sports Dispute Tribunal of the Republic of Kenya on 13 April 2017 is set aside.

3.) Mr. Benjamin Ngandu Ndegwa is sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting on the date of the Partial Award.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Mr. Benjamin Ngandu Ndegwa from and including 6 June 2015 to the date of the Partial Award are disqualified with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

5.) The costs of the arbitration and the Parties’ legal and other costs incurred in connection with the present proceedings shall be determined in a further Award.