CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/003 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Kleber Da Silva Ramos

Related cases:

• CAS OG AD 16/06 International Olympic Committee vs Kleber Da Silva Ramos
  August 20, 2016
• UCI-ADT 2017 UCI vs Kleber Da Silva Ramos
  January 8, 2018

Mr. Kleber Da Silva Ramos is a Brazilian Athlete competing in the road race cyling event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 7 August 2016 the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete accepted the test results, waived his right to be heard for the CAS Panel and didn’t file a statement in his defence.

Considering the test results the CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Art. 2 IOC ADR.

Therefore the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel decides on 12 August 2016:

1.) The Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

2.) All results obtained by the Athlete in the Olympic Games Rio 2016 are disqualified with all consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes.

3.) The Athlete is excluded from the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

4.) The Athlete's Accreditation (number 1210046) is withdrawn.

5.) The responsibility for the Athlete's results management in terms of sanction beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is referred to the UCI being the applicable International Federation.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/004 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Silvia Danekova

Ms. Sylvia Danekova is a Bulgarian Athlete competing in the Athletics events at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 8 August the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete waived her right to be heard and submitted a statement in her defence.

The CAS Panel finds that the substances mentioned in the Athlete’s letter do not fully correspond to the substances indicated by her on the Doping Control Form. The Athlete did not provide any evidence corroborating her statements in the letter, neither as to the origin of the Prohibited Substance found in her body, nor as to the argued lack of intent.

Considering the test results the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and decides on 12 August 2016:

1.) The Athlete is declared ineligible to compete in the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

2.) The Athlete is excluded from the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

3.) The Athlete’s Accreditation (number 1117181) is withdrawn.

4.) The responsibility for the Athlete’s results management in terms of sanction beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is referred to the International Association of Athletics Federations being the applicable International Federation.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/005 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Xinyi Chen

Related case:

FINA 2016 FINA vs Xinyi Chen
December 7, 2016

• Aquatics (swimming)
• Doping (hydrochlorothiazide)
• Duty of the athlete
• Alternative explanation
• Literal application of the WADA Technical Documents

1. Being a young, honest person and developing outstanding performance results using exclusively fair and accepted training methods neither eliminate nor diminish the athlete’s duty under the IOC Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his/her body, and in case of an Adverse Analytical Finding, his/her duty to explain the source of the prohibited substance.

2. A mere assumption or speculation without any corroborating evidence does not meet the requirement of a consistent alternative explanation for the ingestion of a prohibited substance in order for a CAS panel to feel satisfied “that one of them is more likely than not having occurred”. In particular, contamination in drinking water or meat or other nutrition would most presumably lead to more than just one athlete being found with a prohibited substance in his/her body.

3. Technical Documents being part of the International Standard for Laboratories should be applied literally by laboratories.

Ms Xinyi Chen is a Chinese Athlete competing in the Women’s 100m butterly and the Women’s Freestyle event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 10 August the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ).
After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the CAS Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete asserted, sustained by expert witnesses, that a serious lack of care on the laboratory side, which was suspended by WADA already twice prior to Rio 2016, has been shown. In close, the Athlete reiterated her position, on a balance of probability, that she did not commit an ADRV noting the following:
1.) in the short time available, she tested and analysed all medication and vitamins to determine the source of the prohibited substance;
2.) she has a clean anti-doping record from numerous tests in the past;
3.) she underwent a forensic report with an expert of the Public Prosecutor Office, which confirmed and underlined her honesty; and
4.) the numerous mistakes committed by the Rio laboratory in the present case. Therefore, the Athlete should not be disqualified from the 100 m butterfly finals.

The Panel notes that the Athlete undertook enormous efforts in order to find the source for the prohibited substance in her body. None of these tested substances, however, led to any finding with respect of the source of HCTZ.

The Panel finds that as a matter of fact, no evidence on a balance of probability as required by art. 3.1 IOC ADR could be adduced by the Athlete to rebut the laboratory's analysis' result on the A and the B Sample: the presence of the prohibited substance of HCTZ in the Athlete's sample. In the opinion of the Panel there was no departure from the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL).

The Panel concludes that the IOC met the burden of proof under Art. 3.1 IOC ADR. The documents adduced by the IOC establish sufficient proof, to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel, that the presence of the prohibited substance in the Athlete's body constitutes an ADRV under Art. 2 IOC ADR.

Therefore the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel decides on 18 August 2016:

1.) The IOC has established the presence of a prohibited substance in accordance with Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

2.) The result obtained by the Athlete in the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is disqualified in accordance with Article 9 of the IOC ADR, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

3.) In accordance with Art. 10.2.2 IOC ADR, the matter of the Athlete is referred to FINA to decide on the responsibility for result management in terms of sanctions beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/006 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Kleber Da Silva Ramos

Related cases:

• CAS OG AD 20/03 IOC vs Kleber Da Silva Ramos
  August 18, 2016
• UCI-ADT 2017 UCI vs Kleber Da Silva Ramos
  January 8, 2018

Mr. Kleber Da Silva Ramos is a Brazilian Athlete competing in the road race cyling event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 7 August 2016 the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA). The IOC opened proceedings CAS OG AD 16/03 against the Athlete with the CAS Anti-Doping Division.

On 11 August 2016 the IOC has reported a second anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA).

Because of the first reported anti-doping rule violation the Athlete was already provisional suspended and also the proceedings in this second case CAS OG AD 16/06 against the Athlete was suspended pending the final award of the Panel in CAS OG AD 16/03.

On 18 August 2016 the CAS Anti-Doping Panel decided in CAS OG AD 16/03 that:

• the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• he was declared ineligible to compete in all competitions in which he had not yet participated at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games;
• he was excluded from the Rio Games;
• his accreditation (number 1210046) was withdrawn; and
• the matter, as to consequences associated therewith, was referred to the UCI accordingly.

After publication of the Award in CAS OG AD 16/03 the Panel resumed the suspended proceedings in CAS OG AD 16/06.

Also in this case the Athlete accepted the test results, waived his right to be heard for the CAS Panel and didn’t file a statement in his defence.

Considering the test results in this case the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel decides on 20 August 2016:

1.) The Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

2.) The responsibility for the Athlete's results management in terms of sanction beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is referred to the UCI being the applicable International Federation.

3.) All remaining requests for relief are denied as moot.

CAS AD 16/07 International Olympic Committee v. lzzat Artykov

Related case:
CAS 2016_A_4777 Izzat Artykov vs IOC
April, 21, 2017

Mr. Izzat Artykov is a Kyrgyz Athlete competing in the Men’s 69 kg Weightlifting event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 12 August 2016 the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance strychnine. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Non of the parties requested for a hearing and the Athlete did not file a statement in his defence.

The CAS Panel finds that the IOC met its burden of proof under Art. 3.1 IOC ADR. The documents adduced by the IOC establish sufficient proof, to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel, that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation under Art. 2 IOC ADR.

Therefore the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel decides on 18 August 2016:

1.) The Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Olympic Games Rio 2016.
2.) All results obtained by the Athlete in the Olympic Games Rio 2016 are disqualified with all consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes.
3.) The Athlete is excluded from the Olympic Games Rio 2016.
4.) The Athlete's Accreditation (number 1087397) is withdrawn.
5.) The responsibility for the Athlete's results management in terms of sanction beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is referred to the International Weightlifting Federation being the applicable International Federation.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/008 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Chagnaadorj Usukhbayar

Mr. Chagnaadorj Usukhbayar is a Mongolian Athlete competing in the 56 kg Weightlifting event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 16 August 2016 the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Non of the parties requested for a hearing and the Athlete did not file a statement in his defence.

The CAS Sole Arbitrator finds that the IOC met its burden of proof under Art. 3.1 IOC ADR. The documents adduced by the IOC establish sufficient proof, to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator, that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation under Art. 2 IOC ADR.

Therefore the CAS Anti-Doping Division Sole Arbitrator decides on 20 August 2016:

1.) The Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Olympic Games Rio 2016.
2.) All results obtained by the Athlete in the Olympic Games Rio 2016 are disqualified with all consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes.
3.) The Athlete is excluded from the Olympic Games Rio 2016.
4.) The Athlete's Accreditation (number 1141787) is withdrawn.
5.) The responsibility for the Athlete's results management in terms of sanction beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is referred to the International Weightlifting Federation being the applicable International Federation.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/009 & 013 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Qian Chen

• Modern Pentathlon
• Doping (hydrochlorothiazide)
• Automatic disqualification based on Art. 9 IOC ADR
• Proportionality of the disqualification

1. Art. 9 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) clearly states that an anti-doping rule violation in connection with an in-competition test automatically leads to disqualification of the result obtained in the competition in question. No flexibility is provided at all. The automatic disqualification pursuant to this article is nothing but the objective consequence of an objective fact, i.e. the adverse analytical finding. It is an application of a condition of ineligibility retroactively assessed. The aforementioned condition implies that the athlete cannot validly and legitimately compete in a competition of an individual sport during the Olympic Games if a prohibited substance is present in his or her body irrespective of whether the source of that presence can in anyway be linked to a fault or negligence of the athlete and/or irrespective of any effect that substance may have had on his or her performance or not.

2. Within the framework of Art. 9 IOC ADR, and as part of the anti-doping system and the need of the fight against doping in sports, the issue of proportionality has already been taken into account. Indeed, within this system the possibility exists that an athlete who bears no fault or negligence, nor she or he had a known intention to enhance the sportive performance will be automatically disqualified for an established anti-doping rule violation in connection with an in-competition test. However, it is not a question of culpability, but a consequence of circumstances in which an athlete did not meet the equal standards applicable to all the participants in the competition. The mere participation of the athlete in a competition while a prohibited substance was present in his or her body by itself establishes a situation of non-equality between him or her and the other participants in the competition, regardless of the question of culpability or intention.

Ms. Qian Chen is a Chinese Athlete competing in the Women’s Modern Pentathlon event at the 2016 Rio Olympic Games.

On 20 August 2016 and on 30 September 2016 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reported 2 anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete after her A and B samples - provided on 17 August and on 19 August 2016 - tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide. Following notification the IOC filed an application with the CAS Anti-Doping Division and both cases were consolidated.

The Athlete accepted the test results, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested to uphold her results at the Games. She demonstrated with reports issued by two Chinese Labs that contaminated fruit sugar tablets were the source of the positive tests.

The IOC requested the Sole Arbitrator to exclude the Athlete from the 2016 Rio Olympic Games and to disqualify her results because of the 2 anti-doping rule violation she had committed. Further the IOC contended that the findings in the Chinese Lab reports were erroneous.

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. Under the IOC ADR disqualification of the Athlete's results is an automatic consequence of an anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the submissions of the Athlete in respect of the possible source and the possible explanation for the existence of the prohibited substance in her body are irrelevant to the case at hand, however will be examined thoroughly and dealt with by her International Federation in the process of the result management in terms of sanctions beyond the Games.

Therefore the Sole Arbitrator decides on 6 April 2017:

1.) The application CAS AD 16/09 is deemed withdrawn.

2.) The application CAS AD 16/13 is granted.

3.) The Athlete is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.1 of the IOC ADR.

4.) The results obtained by the Athlete in the Women’s Modern Pentathlon event at the Olympic Games Rio 2016, in which she finished 4th, are disqualified with all consequences, including forfeiture of her Olympic diploma.

5.) The Athlete is ordered to return her diploma.

6.) The Union Internationale de Pentathlon Moderne is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/010 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Gabriel Sincraian

Related case:

IOC 2019 IOC vs Gabriel Sincraian
November 23, 2020

Mr. Gabriel Sincraian is a Romanian Athlete competing in the 85 kg Weightlifting event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

On 12 August 2016 the IOC has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance testosterone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete did not respond nor did he file a statement in his defence hereafter.

In November 2016 the CAS Sole Arbitrator finds that the IOC met its burden of proof under Art. 3.1 IOC ADR. The documents adduced by the IOC establish sufficient proof, to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator, that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation under Art. 2 IOC ADR.

Therefore the CAS Anti-Doping Division Sole Arbitrator decides on 8 December 2016:

1.) The Application filed by the IOC is admissible.

2.) The Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

3.) All results obtained by the Athlete in the Olympic Games Rio 2016, including the bronze medal in the Men’s Weightlifting 85 kg event, are disqualified with all consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, diplomas, pins, points and prizes.

4.) The National Olympic Committee of Romania is requested to secure the return to the IOC of the medal, medallist pin, and diploma given to the Athlete.

5.) The responsibility for the Athlete’s results management in terms of sanction and Consequences beyond the Olympic Games Rio 2016 is referred to the International Weightlifting Federation being the applicable International Federation.

With respect to item 4 of previous paragraph, the Sole Arbitrator notes that the National Olympic Committee of Romania is not a party to these proceedings and susceptible to an order made by him. However, the duty to make the return of the items sought by the IOC lies first with the Athlete. The assistance of the NOC is part of its general duty of collaboration with the IOC.