Used filter(s): 923 items found

  • Remove all filters
  • Legal Source:
    anyall
    • CAS Advisory Opinion Awards
    • CAS Anti-Doping Division Awards
    • CAS Appeal Awards
    • CAS Miscellaneous Awards
    • CAS Ordinary Procedure Awards

CAS 2019_A_6109 Dayana Dimitrova vs IWF

18 Jul 2019

CAS 2019/A/6109 Dayana Dimitrova v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)

  • Weightlifting
  • Doping (furosemide)
  • Validity of a decision rendered by the competent IWF Anti-
  • Doping Administrator
  • IWF’s right to test an athlete irrespective of his/her suspension
  • Sanction applicable to a second anti-doping rule violation


1. There is no reason for a decision to be declared invalid where such decision has been taken by the competent IWF Anti-Doping Administrator in accordance with the IWF Anti-Doping Program (ADP).

2. Furosemide is prohibited at all times. Therefore it does not matter whether the athlete was in or out of competition when the sample was collected. Under the IWF ADP there is a right in the IWF to test an athlete irrespective of his/her suspension, i.e. the athlete is subject to in- and out-of-competition testing at all relevant times. The IWF has express authority to test athletes competing in IWF events, and there can be no dispute that athletes are subject to that regime when they enter IWF events, whether that entry is appropriate or not. In fact, they consent to that jurisdiction as a condition of entry under the IWF rules. To consider otherwise would mean that potentially any athlete who is provisionally suspended for having committed a prior ADRV, and violates the terms of that suspension by competing, could benefit with impunity for any ADRV committed at such a competition. This would result, in essence, in an anti-doping rules pause with respect to that athlete. Opening the door to such a possibility shall be rejected.

3. An athlete who admitted to having taken a product containing Furosemide, i.e. a Specified Substance prohibited at all times, “in regard to” her “menstrual problems” did so intentionally. The fact to have taken said product despite already having been sanctioned for a positive sample due to the same substance, demonstrates tremendous disregard of her duty to avoid ingesting prohibited substances. Accordingly, the athlete committed her second ADRV and should be declared ineligible for a period of eight (8) years.



In March 2017, in May 2017 and in November 2018 3 seperate anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs) were reported against the Bulgarian weightlifter Dayana Dimitrova after her samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Furosemide. The samples were collected on 20 March 2017 (1st ADRV); 5 April 2017 (2nd ADRV; and on 20 October 2018 (3rd ADRV).

The Athlete already served a sanction of 6 months for the committed first ADRV until 20 September 2017. Meanwhile a provisional suspension was ordered due to the reported second ADRV committed on 20 March 2017. Yet the Athlete not only committed a 3rd ADRV on 20 October 2018, she also breached the provisional suspension ordered for the reported second ADRV committed on 20 March 2017.

Consequently on 26 November 2018 the IWF Legal Council decided:

  • to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for the ADRVs committed on 20 March 2017 and 5 April 2017;
  • to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for the committed ADRV committed on 20 October 2018.

Hereafter in January 2019 the Athlete appealed the IWF decision of 26 November 2018 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and requested the Panel to annul the Appealed Decision.

The Athlete disputed the competence of the IWF because the Appealed Decision was rendered by the invalid IWF Anti-Doping Administrator. Further she argued that the positive test of 20 October 2018 must be considered as a second ADRV despite the Athlete was provisionally suspended at that time.

The Panel establishes that the Appealed Decision was valid and had been rendered by the competent IWF Anti-Doping Administrator. The Athlete's ADRVs committed on 20 March and 5 April 2017 must be considered a single first ADRV.

The Panel holds that the Athlete was provisionally suspended on 2 May 2017 and that it was never lifted despite the failure of the IWF to timely act on the reported anti-doping rule violation of 5 april 2017 and the obvious lack of communication between te anti-doping organisations involved.

The Panel deems that the Athlete had admitted the use of the Furosemide and did so intentionally as treatment for her condition whereas she already had been sanctioned for using this prohibited substance.

Accordingly the Panel concludes that the Athlete had committed a second ADRV and it upholds the Appealed Decision for the imposition of an 8 year period of ineligibility, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 20 October 2018.

Therefore The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 18 July 2019 that:

  1. The appeal filed on 21 January 2019 by Ms Dayana Dimitrova against the decision rendered by the IWF Anti-Doping Administrator on 28 December 2018 is dismissed.
  2. The decision rendered by the IWF Anti-Doping Administrator on 28 December 2018 is confirmed.
  3. (…).
  4. (…).
  5. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2019_A_6530 Jeffrey Brown vs USADA | Alberto Salazar vs USADA

15 Sep 2021

CAS 2019/A/6530 Jeffrey Brown v. USADA
CAS 2019/A/6531 Alberto Salazar v. USADA

Related cases:

  • AAA 2017 No. 01 17 0003 6197 USADA vs Jeffrey Brown
    September 30, 2019
  • AAA 2017 No. 01 17 0004 0880 USADA vs Alberto Salazar
    September 30, 2019

Dr. Jeffrey Brown is a physician and a consultant from 2009-2012 for the Nike Oregon Project (NOP), the NOP Athletes and Mr. Alberto Salazar.

Mr. Alberto Salazar is an American track coach and former world-class long-distance runner and the head coach of the NOP in Portland, Oregon.

In March 2017 USADA alleged that Dr. Brown was generally involved in the prescription of Testosterone by Dr. Brown to Mr. Salazar; and Dr. Brown’s was involvement in a Testosterone experiment conducted at the NOP facilities in June and July, 2009 (the Testosterone Experiment). Dr. Brown was involved in the administration of L-carnitine infusions in 2011 and 2012; and actions taken by Dr. Brown and his counsel in connection with the investigation and adjudication of the foregoing claims.

Also in March 2017 USADA alleged that Mr. Alberto Salazar was involved in the infusions/injections of L-carnite administered to the Athlete Steve Magness and NOP athletes; possession and use of Testosterone gel and tampering together with his attorneys during the investigation and arbitration. During the proceedings USADA did not pursue the Administration or Attempted Administration of Testosterone for personal use.



On 30 September 2019 the Tribunal of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on Dr. Jeffey Brown and Mr. Salazar for committing multiple anti-doping rule violations:

Dr. Jeffrey Brown:

  • Complicity in trafficking of Testosterone
  • Administration of a prohibited method
  • Tampering of records

Mr. Alberto Salazar:

  • Trafficking of Testosterone
  • Administration of a prohibited method
  • Tampering

Hereafter in October 2019 both Dr. Jeffrey Brown and Mr. Alberto Salazar appealed the AAA Decisions with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and requested for a consolidated procedure.

Dr. Jeffrey Brown and Mr. Salazar challenged the Appealed Decisions and denied they had committed any anti-doping rule violations.

USADA contended regarding Dr. Brown that:

  • Dr. Brown’s prescriptions of Testosterone to Mr. Salazar were not medically justified and his involvement in the Testosterone Experiment amounted to an ADRV.
  • Dr. Brown committed an ADRV in administering a prohibited method to Mr. Magness and committed ADRVs of administration or attempted administration in respect of NOP athletes.
  • Dr. Brown inappropriately altered Mr. Magness and NOP athletes’ patient records, elicited false testimony from witnesses and was involved in establishing a false narrative to mislead USADA into believing that NOP athletes received their L-carnitine administrations via syringes rather than infusion bags.

USADA contended regarding Mr. Salazar that:

  • Mr. Salazar’s possession of Testosterone was not medically justified and his application of Testosterone (a prohibited substance) to his sons in the Testosterone Experiment amounted to an ADRV;
  • Mr. Salazar committed an ADRV of administration, attempted administration or complicity in Dr. Brown’s administration of a prohibited method to Mr. Magness and committed ADRVs of administration or attempted administration in respect of NOP athletes;
  • Mr. Salazar committed ADRVs of tampering through a range of conduct, including giving false testimony during depositions held in relation to USADA’s anti-doping investigation, eliciting false testimony from witnesses and establishing a false narrative to mislead USADA into believing that NOP athletes received their L-carnitine administrations via syringes rather than infusion bags.

After assessment of all of the submissions and evidence presented throughout the cours of the proceedings the Panel dismissed specific charges against Mr. Salazar and Dr. Brown due to USADA had not established that they had contravened Articles of the WADC regarding Trafficking, Complicity, Possession, Administration and Tampering .

Nevertheless the Panel made the following findings:

  • Dr. Brown contravened Article 2.8 of the 2009 WADC (Complicity) by assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting or otherwise engaging in complicity in relation to Mr. Salazar’s possession of testosterone in furtherance of the Testosterone Experiment.

  • Dr. Brown contravened Article 2.7 of the 2009 WADC (Trafficking) by sending or delivering Testosterone to Mr. Salazar in relation to the Testosterone Experiment, either by delivering Testosterone to Mr. Salazar (i) for use in the Testosterone Experiment; or (ii) to replenish Testosterone used by Mr. Salazar in the Testosterone Experiment.

  • Dr. Brown contravened Article 2.8 of the 2009 WADC (Administration) by administering a Prohibited Method to Mr. Magness on in November 2011.

  • Dr. Brown contravened Article 2.5 of the 2009 WADC (Tampering) with respect to the issue of L-carnitine infusions/syringes.

  • Mr. Salazar contravened Article 2.6.2 of the 2009 WADC (Possession) by possessing Testosterone in furtherance of the Testosterone Experiment.

  • Mr. Salazar contravened Article 2.8 of the 2009 WADC (Administration by complicity) by assisting, encouraging and otherwise being complicit in Dr. Brown’s administration of a Prohibited Method to Mr. Magness in November 2011.

  • Mr. Salazar contravened Article 2.5 of the 2009 WADC (Tampering) with respect to the issue of L-carnitine infusions/syringes.


Therefore Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 September 2021 that:

1. Dr. Jeffrey Brown committed the following anti-doping rule violations:

  • a.) Complicity (2009 WADC Article 2.8) in Mr. Alberto Salazar’s possession of Testosterone in furtherance of the Testosterone Experiment;
  • b.) Trafficking (2009 WADC Article 2.7) of Testosterone to Mr. Alberto Salazar in relation to the Testosterone Experiment;
  • c.) Administration (2009 WADC Article 2.8) of a Prohibited Method, being an infusion in excess of the permitted volume, to Mr. Steve Magness;
  • d.) Tampering (2009 WADC Article 2.5) with the Doping Control Process with respect to the issue of L-carnitine infusions/syringes.

2. The appeal filed by Dr. Jeffrey Brown on 21 October 2019 and the “cross-appeal” filed by USADA on 29 April 2021 are otherwise dismissed and the period of ineligibility imposed by the Brown AAA Panel, being a period of ineligibility of four years, is upheld.

3. Mr. Alberto Salazar committed the following anti-doping rule violations:

  • a.) Possession (2009 WADC Article 2.6) of Testosterone in furtherance of the Testosterone Experiment;
  • b.) Complicity (2009 WADC Article 2.8) in Dr. Jeffrey Brown’s Administration of a Prohibited Method to Mr. Steve Magness;
  • c.) Tampering (2009 WADC Article 2.5) with the Doping Control Process with respect to the issue of L-carnitine infusions/syringes.

4. The appeal filed by Mr. Alberto Salazar on 21 October 2019 and the “cross-appeal” filed by USADA on 29 April 2021 are otherwise dismissed and the period of ineligibility imposed by the Salazar AAA Panel, being a period of ineligibility of four years, is upheld.

5. (…).
6. (…).
7. All other prayers for relief in the appeals and cross-appeals are dismissed.

CAS 2021_O_7668 World Athletics vs Danil Lysenko

21 May 2021

CAS 2021/O/7668 World Athletics v. Danil Lysenko

Related cases:

  • World Athletics 2019 WA vs Alexander Parkin
    February 16, 2021
  • World Athletics 2019 WA vs Artur Karamyan & Dmitry Shlyakhtin
    February 8, 2021
  • World Athletics 2019 WA vs Elena Ikonnikova (1)
    March 6, 2020
  • World Athletics 2019 WA vs Elena Ikonnikova (2)
    February 16, 2021
  • World Athletics 2019 WA vs Elena Orlova (1)
    August 21, 2020
  • World Athletics 2019 WA vs Elena Orlova (2)
    February 16, 2021


In August 2018 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics has reported an anti-doping rule violation of Tampering against the Russian high jumper Danil Lysenko after the AIU had opened an investigation against the Athlete regarding his Whereabouts Failures.

With the assistance of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) the AIU discovered that the Athlete had forged medical documents to the AIU. It also concluded that RusAF officials had been involved in the provision of false explanations and forged documents to the AIU in order to explain whereabouts failures by the Athlete. 

As a result in November 2019 the AIU issued charges against Mr Dmitry Shlyakhtin (RusAF President), Mr Artum Karamyan (RusAF Board Member), and several other RusAF officials for committing multiple anti-doping rule violations: 

  • Tampering or Attempted Tampering
  • Complicity
  • Refusal or failure to report an Anti-Doping Rule Violation
  • Refusal or failure to cooperate with investigations.

All those charged by the AIU have been sanctioned and their decisions are now final and binding.

In a separate proceeding, the athlete’s coach, Evgeniy Zagorulko, admitted to violations of Tampering and Complicity in connection with the AIU’s investigation into the Lysenko whereabouts case and accepted a 4-year period of ineligibility under the applicable rules. The coach provided Substantial Assistance to the AIU in connection with the charges against Shlyakhtin and Karamyan.


The AIU referred the case against the Athlete Danil Lysenko to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. 

The CAS Panel concludes that the Athlete had committed multiple breaches of the Anti-Doping rules including whereabouts failures and tampering with the results management process.

The CAS Panel deems that 2 years of the 6 year period of ineligibility should be suspended on account of the Substantial Assistance that the athlete provided to the AIU in bringing charges against former RusAF officials, Dmitry Shlyakhtin and Artur Karamyan.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decides on 21 May 2021 that:

  1. The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics against Mr Danil Lysenko on 1 February 2021 is partially upheld.
  2. Mr Danil Lysenko is found to have committed (i) a first anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.4 (Whereabouts Failures) of the 2018 IAAF Anti-Doping Rules; and (ii) a second anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.5 (Tampering and/or Attempted Tampering) of the 2018 and 2019 IAAF Anti-Doping Rules.
  3. Mr Danil Lysenko is subject to a two (2) year period of ineligibility with respect to the first anti-doping rule violation (Article 2.4) and a four ( 4) year period of ineligibility
    with respect to the second anti-doping rule violation (Article 2.5).
  4. The total period of ineligibility with respect to the first and second anti-doping rule violations is six ( 6) years, starting as of the date of this Award, with credit given for the
    ineligibility period already served by Mr Danil Lysenko (i.e. from 3 August 2018).
  5. The total period of ineligibility to be served by Mr Danil Lysenko shall be suspended for a period of twenty-four (24) months in consideration of the Substantial Assistance
    provided by Mr Lysenko to the Athletics Integrity Unit, pursuant to Article 10.7.1 of the Anti-Doping Rules of the World Athletics in force from 1 January 2021.
  6. All competitive results of Mr Danil Lysenko as from 1 July 2018 until 2 August 2018 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of medals, titles,
    ranking points and prize and appearance money).
  7. The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne in their entirety by World Athletics.
  8. World Athletics and Mr Danil Lysenko shall bear their own legal costs.
  9. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2021_A_7983 Brianna McNeal vs World Athletics | World Athletics vs Brianna McNeal

2 Jul 2021

CAS 2021/A/7983 Brianna McNeal v. World Athletics (WA) & CAS 2021/A/8059 WA v. Brianna McNeal

Related case:

World Athletics 2021 WA vs Brianna McNeal
April 21, 2021


  • Athletics (hurdles)
  • Doping (tampering with any part of the doping control)
  • Applicable law and lex mitior
  • Assessment of the evidence
  • Conduct to be considered tampering
  • Sanction for a tampering ADRV as a first offence and exceptional circumstances
  • Degree of fault
  • Applicable sanction to multiple violations
  • Application of the principle of proportionality

1. An exception to the principle of application of the law at the time of the facts exists if lex mitior doctrine applies. The principle of lex mitior occupies a central place in sports law. There is no discretion on the application of the lex mitior principle once it is found that the case appropriately falls within its scope. Lex mitior principle is relevant and applicable when and if the new rules (i) provide for a reduced sanction; and/or (ii) redefine the disciplinary offense. The 2021 WA Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) that enshrines the lex mitior principle offers more favourable terms to athletes with respect to the imposition of sanctions for violations of tampering offences. Equally, the new rules afford considerably greater flexibility in connection with the consequences to be drawn from a finding of multiple anti-doping rule violations.

2. The “evaluation of the evidence” concept refers to the judicial process of weighing/assessing the evidence on the record (appréciation des preuves). Under Swiss arbitration law, the deciding body is free in its evaluation of the evidence (libre appréciation des preuves). This principle is expressly recalled by Article 9(1) of the IBA Rules of Evidence. The assessment of the evidence contributes significantly to the decision-making. CAS panels need to have strong evidence that certain facts occurred in a given manner and the evidence also has to satisfy CAS panels in the same sense. The relevant circumstances of the case assessed individually and/or combined, commonly known as the context, are major elements to reach this conclusion.

3. It is not necessary for a Doping Control Process to be actually subverted, in order for a tampering offence to exist (violation of Rule 2.5 2021 WA ADR). It suffices, for that purpose, that the conduct in question could, in theory, subvert the said process. The commission of a tampering offence always requires satisfactory proof that the offender intended to subvert the investigation, even if the latter was unaware that he was violating an anti-doping provision. In the specific context of the rules, intent does not need to be direct in the sense that subverting the doping control process was the sole and only driving motive behind the athlete’s actions. Rather, it is sufficient for there to be intent that the athlete recognises the consequences of his or her actions and accepts that such consequences have the potential to subvert the process. A violation of Rule 2.5 2021 WA ADR cannot be established merely by reference to the examples included in the rule. Therefore, a finding that the offence has actually been committed must include consideration of the subjective aspects of the case. In this respect, the alteration by an athlete of the dates of medical notes issued by a clinic that is intended to explain a missed test cannot only be considered to be falsification of a document under WA ADR, but also to a conduct that tends to/is capable of subverting the Doping Control Process.

4. Under Rule 10.3.1 2021 WA ADR, a reduction of the 4 years period of ineligibility applicable for a first tampering offence in a range from 2 years to 4 years is possible if the athlete can establish exceptional circumstances depending on the athlete’s degree of fault. The specific meaning of “exceptional circumstances” is not defined in said rule. Yet, some examples of what can be considered to be “exceptional circumstances” are provided in the context of other rules. The interpretation of the expression “exceptional circumstances” must be restrictive so as only to include very unusual or abnormal situations. In this respect, the conduct of an athlete that without any doubt failed to prove that he did not intend to subvert the Doping Control Process, can nevertheless betray a certain level of psychological disturbance, which does not, however, alter the seriousness of his acts and the fact that he committed an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV). In this regard, psychological factors may amount to an abnormality that is “not within the bounds of normal conduct” and therefore to exceptional circumstances that justify that the penalty imposed on the athlete for the Tampering ADRV, when fixed on a first offence basis, varies according to the athlete’s degree of fault.

5. In order to determine into which category of fault – significant, normal or light – a particular case might fall, it is helpful to consider both the objective and the subjective level of fault. The objective element describes what standard of care could have been expected from a reasonable person in the athlete’s situation. The subjective element describes what could have been expected from that particular athlete, in light of his personal capacities. In this respect, an athlete who acted, in objective terms, with a “significant degree of fault” can, due to the existence of exceptional circumstances closely linked to the subjective aspects of the case, have his degree of fault reduced from a “significant degree of fault” to a “normal degree of fault”.

6. In the context of a second ADRV, the minimum level of the penalty to be imposed is the sum total of the period imposed for the athlete’s first ADRV and the period of ineligibility that would be imposed on the athlete for the second ADRV, on a first offence basis. The maximum limit is twice the period of ineligibility that would be imposed on the athlete for the second ADRV. The specific penalty applicable must be fixed within this range, by reference to all the circumstances and the athlete’s degree of fault with regard to the second offence.

7. The period of ineligibility sanction to be imposed on the athlete may not be further reduced under the principle of proportionality if the elements of such principle have already been dully considered in the context of the second ADRV as per the 2021 WADC. Moreover, only the most extreme and rare cases, where sanctions are clearly disproportionate and unfair, allow for an autonomous consideration of the principle of proportionality.



On 21 April 2021 the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decided to impose a 5 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for Tampering.

In this matter the AIU had established that the Athlete had provided false statements and in support had produced falisified documents in order to explain her missed test on 12 January 2020. When interviewed in August 2020 the Athlete admitted that she had altered documents.

In First Instance the Disciplinary Tribunal Panel regarded that the subjective elements of this case are very specific and exceptional. The Panel considered that the personal circumstances and trauma the Athlete was suffering at the time she committed her Tampering violation justify a reduction of her degree of Fault and reduction of the period of ineligibility for her second anti-doping rule violation.

Hereafter both the Athlete and World Athletics appealed the Decision of 21 April 2021 with the Court of Arbitratration for Sport (CAS).

After assessment of the case the CAS Panel dismissed the appeal filed by the Athlete Brianna McNeal and partially upheld the appeal filed by World Athletics. The Challenged Decision is confirmed, with one additional element.

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

  1. The appeal filed by Ms Brianna McNeal on 21 May 2021 against the decision of the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal dated 21 April 2021 is dismissed.
  2. The appeal filed by World Athletics on 17 June 2021 against the decision of the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal dated 21 April 2021 is partially upheld.
  3. The decision of the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal dated 21 April 2021 is confirmed in full, with the following additional item:

    "All competitive results obtained by Ms. Brianna McNeal between 13 February 2020 and 14 August 2020 shall be disqualified with all resulting consequences includingforfeiture of any medals, titles, points, prize money and prizes."

  4. This Award is pronounced without costs, except for the CAS Court Office of CHF 1 '000 (one thousand swiss francs) paid by Ms Brianna McNeal and World Athletics which is retained by the CAS.
  5. Each Party shall bear its own legal and other costs incmTed in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
  6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2021_O_7977 World Athletics vs Shelby Houlihan

27 Aug 2021

CAS 2021/O/7977 World Athletics (WA) v. Shelby Houlihan

  • Athletics (middle-distance)
  • Doping (nandrolone/19-norandrosterone (19-NA))
  • Prerogative of a laboratory
  • Burden of proof of a lack of intention to commit an Anti-
  • Doping Rule Violation (ADRV)
  • Rebuttal of the presumption that an ADRV is intentional through hair analysis and polygraph testing


1. Irrespective of whether or not an athlete invoked the ingestion of boar offal as a possible explanation for an adverse analytical finding, it is a laboratory’s prerogative to interpret whether a gas chromatography/carbon/isotope-ration mass spectrometry (GC/C/IRMS) analysis is “not consistent with the exogenous production of the parent compound” or “inconclusive” in light of the Technical Document (TD) 2021NA.

2. According to art. 10.2.1 of the edition 2020 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules (WA ADR), the burden of proof that the ADRV was not intentional is on the athlete. Unlike for “no fault” or “no significant fault”, the WA ADR does not provide that the athlete must show how the substance entered her system in order to claim that the ADRV was not intentional.

3. Neither the positive result of a hair analysis nor of a polygraph test are sufficient for an athlete to rebut the presumption that his/her ADRV was intentional.



In January 2021 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) for World Athletics reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American Athlete Shelby Houlihan after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. In May 2021 the case was referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel. Previously the Athlete's request to lift the imposed provisional suspension was rejected by the AIU as by CAS.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and  argued that the 19-norandrosterone entered her body by eating a burrito from a food truck containing pork offal and that the burrito was the only possible source of the 19-norandrosterone in the Sample.

The Athlete disputed the test results and asserted, supported by an expert witness, that the analytical results of the Montreal Lab should haven been reported as an Atypical Finding. Further she argued that TD2021NA applies since this document was approved and published and because of the application of the principle of lex mitior.

The Panel establishes that the TD2021NA is applicable in this matter and a majority of the Panel finds that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) was not properly reported pursuant to the ISL, neither that the anti-doping rule violation was not properly managed, asserted and notified pursuant to the ISRM.

Following assessment of the evidence the Panel:

  • finds it possible but unlikely that the Athlete’s burrito contained boar offal;
  • finds it possible but unlikely that the ingestion of boar offal would have resulted in the urinary concentration of 19-norandrosterone found in the Athlete’s A and B samples;
  • finds it possible but not probable that the ingestion of boar offal would have resulted in the Athlete’s reported urinary concentration of 19-NA or her carbon isotope ratio of -23‰;
  • finds that neither the hair analysis nor the polygraph results are sufficient for the Athlete to satisfy her burden of proving that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.

Finally the Panel concludes that the Athlete has not satisfied her burden of proof on the balance of probabilities that the anti-doping rule violation was unintentional, and that the violation must be deemed intentional.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 27 August 2021 that:

  1. The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics on 18 May 2021 against Shelby Houlihan is upheld.
  2. Shelby Houlihan is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules.
  3. Shelby Houlihan is subject to a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting on 14 January 2021.
  4. All competitive results obtained by Shelby Houlihan from 15 December 2020 through to 14 January 2021 are disqualified, including forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money obtained during this period.
  5. (…).
  6. (…).
  7. All other motions or requests for relief are dismissed.
  8. The present decision is confidential, unless the President of the CAS Ordinary Arbitration Division decides that it should be made public.

CAS 2020_A_7526 World Athletics vs Salwa Eid Naser | WADA vs World Athletics & Salwa Eid Naser

30 Jun 2021
  • CAS 2020/A/7526 World Athletics v. Salwa Eid Naser
  • CAS 2020/A/7559 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. World Athletics & Salwa Eid Naser

  • CAS 2020/A/7526 World Athletics (WA) v. Salwa Eid Naser & CAS 2020/A/7559 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. WA & Salwa Eid Naser


Related case:

World Athletics 2020 WA vs Salwa Eid Naser
October 14, 2020


  • Athletics (track and field)
  • Doping (whereabouts failure)
  • Reasonable attempt to locate an athlete for testing during the sixty minutes time slot
  • Assessment of the DCO recollection of events
  • Missed test presumed to have been caused by the athlete’s negligence unless the presumption is rebutted
  • Personal responsibility of the athlete in case of delegation of
  • Whereabouts Filings to a third party
  • CAS scope of review and recharacterization of the charge against the athlete
  • Second ADRV for sanctioning purpose
  • Reduction of the ineligibility period
  • Starting date of the ineligibility period
  • Disqualification of the athlete’s results

1. According to the International Standard for Testing and Investigation (ISTI) and the WADA Guidelines, an athlete may only be declared to have committed a missed test where the Results Management Authority can establish that during the 60-minute time slot specified in his/her Whereabouts Filing at the location specified for that time slot, the Doping Control Officer (DCO) did what was reasonable in the “particular circumstances of the case”, in particular given the “nature of the location chosen by the Athlete”, to try to locate the athlete, short of giving the athlete any advance notice of the test. The evaluation of the reasonableness of a DCO’s attempt must be made looking objectively at the steps taken by the DCO in the specified location, in light of the information provided by the athlete and in connection with the athlete’s duty of diligence in filing Whereabouts Information that is accurate enough to allow DCOs to find them without any particular effort.

2. There is no presumption that a DCO’s recollection of events is correct unless proven otherwise. Rather, the hearing body must evaluate the probabilities in the particular circumstances of the case in hand.

3. Where a missed test has been established, the athlete has the burden to rebut the presumption that his/her negligence caused his/her failure to be available for testing. According to the ISTI, a “duty” or “care” is expected from an athlete with regard his/her whereabouts obligations which, include (i) a duty to provide and update sufficient and accurate Whereabouts Information for each day on a quarterly basis and (ii) a duty to specify, for each day, a specific location in which, for a sixty-minute timeslot, he/she would be present, available and accessible for unannounced testing. Considering that an athlete is ultimately responsible for the Whereabouts Information being updated, the failure to be available and accessible caused by the indication of a wrong address shall be deemed to be due to the athlete’s negligence.

4. Under the ISTI, an athlete who delegates Whereabouts Filings to a third party assumes all risks for any errors committed by the latter.

5. Under Article R57 of the CAS Code, a recharacterization of the charge would not exceed the limits of the CAS Scope of review. Furthermore, the principle jura novit curia entails that CAS panels can opt for a legal qualification of the conduct that is different from the one envisaged in the charge, as long as the interested parties’ right to be heard is respected. In this regard, since WADA has its first and only chance to present its case at the CAS appeal level, it must be allowed to fully exercise its appeal rights, which include a recharacterization of the charge(s), with the sole caveat that this should be based on the same set of facts discussed during the first instance proceedings. This is indeed essential to (i) secure the integrity of the system, (ii) secure a worldwide uniform application of the anti-doping rules and (iii) prevent ADOs and first instance hearing bodies, especially those at national level, to characterize charges in an incorrect way which could favour a given athlete.

6. Article 10.7.4(a) WA Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) “Multiple Violations” allows to determine under which circumstances an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) can be treated for sanction purposes as a second ADRV, i.e. the athlete must have received notice of a first alleged ADRV before a second violation can be established. Thus, even if there are two distinct ADRVs, for the purpose of sanction they must be treated as one, if the condition precedent for treating them otherwise is not satisfied.

7. An athlete, that has shown an unacceptable degree of nonchalance and a worryingly lackadaisical approach to his/her whereabouts obligations under the ADR in all three Whereabouts Failures, thereby deserves no reduction of the ineligibility period and shall be sanctioned with the standard two-year ineligibility period.

8. With regard to the construction of Proviso c of Article 10.10.2 WA ADR providing for the possibility to backdate the starting date of the athlete’s suspension, it is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition precedent that there have been substantial delays in any aspects of doping control, including the hearing process, which are not attributable to the athlete. If the condition precedent is satisfied, backdating the period of ineligibility is an available but not a mandatory consequence. Whether and how such discretion is exercised by the adjudicating body depends axiomatically upon the circumstances of the particular case.

9. Under Article 10.8 WA ADR, the finding that an athlete has committed an ADRV under Article 2.4 WA ADR entails, as a rule, the disqualification of all the results



On 14 October 2020 the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decided to dismiss the 2 charges against the Athlete Salwa Eid Naser for the reported Whereabouts Filing failures and Missed Tests within a 12 month period.

In first instance the Panel deemed that there was a Missed Test committed on 24 January 2020 but concluded that the Missed Test on 12 April 2019 could not be attributed to the Athlete. As a result the anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) has not been established for 3 Missed Tests to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel. The January 2020 Missed Test still stands against the Athlete. 

Hereafter in November 2020 World Athletics (WA) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the Decision of 14 October 2020 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Both WA and WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision, contending that the 12 April 2019 Missed Test should be confirmed and that thus the Athlete violated Article 2.4 ADR based either on the First Charge or on the Second Charge. As to the consequences for such violation,

WA and WADA contended that the Athlete shall be sanctioned with (i) the standard two-year period of ineligibility, which does not deserve reductions based on the Athlete's degree of fault and (ii) disqualification of her results since the date of the third Whereabouts Failure, 12 April 2019.

The Athlete, sought full confirmation of the Appealed Decision, asserting that on 12 April 2019 there was no Whereabouts Failure. Leaving aside the recharacterization as a Failing Failure, this alleged Whereabouts Failure is crucial to both the First Charge and the Second Charge as, without it, the Athlete would not incur three such failures within a twelve-month period and she could not be charged with any ADRV.

Alternatively, should the Panel find that Athlete did perpetrate an ADRV, the Athlete requested (i) that any imposed period of ineligibility be reduced, taking into account the circumstances of the case at hand, including the delays in the proceedings that led to the Notice of Charge and the Athlete's dyslexia and ADHD, and (ii) that her results be disqualified only from 4 October 2019.

The Panel finds that the 2 separate reported ADRVs against the Athlete must be considered as only one single ADRV for sanctioning purposes and that there are insufficient grounds for backdating the ineligibility period.

Further the Panel concludes that the Athlete, in all three Whereabouts Failures, has shown an unacceptable degree of nonchalance and a worryingly lackadaisical approach to her whereabouts obligations under the ADR, thereby deserving no reduction of her ineligibility period.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 June 2021 that:

  1. The appeal filed by World Athletics on 12 November 2020 against Ms Salwa Eid Naser with respect to the decision issued by the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal on 14 October 2020 is partially upheld.
  2. The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 30 November 2020 against World Athletics and Ms Salwa Eid Naser with respect to the decision issued by the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal on 14 October 2020 is partially upheld.
  3. The decision rendered by the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal on 14 October 2020 in the matter of Ms Salwa Eid Naser is set aside.
  4. Ms Salwa Eid Naser is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of two years, commencing on the date of notification of this award, with credit given for the period of provisional suspension already served between 4 June 2020 and 14 October 2020.
  5. All competitive results obtained by Ms Salwa Eid Naser from 25 November 2019 through to the date of notification of this award shall be disqualified, with all of the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, ranking points and prize and appearance money.
  6. The present award is pronounced without costs, except for the CAS Court Office fees of CHF 1,000 each, already paid by World Athletics and by the World Anti-Doping Agency, which are retained by the CAS.
  7. Ms Salwa Eid Naser shall pay CHF 5,000 (five thousand Swiss francs) to World Athletics and CHF 5,000 (five thousand Swiss francs) to the World Anti-Doping Agency as contribution towards their costs incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
  8. All other or further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS OG_2020_12 Nazar Kovalenko vs World Athletics & Athletics Integrity Unit

3 Aug 2021

CAS OG 20/12 Nazar Kovalenko v. World Athletics & Athletics Integrity Unit

Mr Nazar Kovalenko is a Ukrainian athlete competing in the 20 km race walk discipline. He served a 3 year period of ineligibility, resumed his sporting activitity in March 2020 and started his preparatons for the qualifications for the upcoming Olympic Games.

Previously the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics (WA) had placed the Ukrainian Athletic Federation (UAF) into the category A with the highest risk of doping. Consequently  their national team athletes had to undergo at least 3 out-of-competition doping tests in the 10 months before a World Championship or Olympic Games.

This case is about the question of whether the Athlete is eligible to participate as an athlete in the 20 km Race Walk at Tokyo 2020, although it is undisputed that the Athlete failed to meet the Mandatory Testing Requirements which are issued for all athletes belonging to Category A Federations under the WA AD Rule 15.5.1 c.

In this matter the Panel believes that three main questions are presented before it:

  • Whether the ineligibility of the Athlete decided by the AIU for the failure to comply with AR Rule 15 is an unenforceable sanction;
  • Whether the Athlete has, in practice, complied with the testing requirements and therefore his ineligibility would be a disproportionate, unfair and illegal measure taken against him;
  • Whether the Athlete has demonstrated exceptional circumstances that would allow an exemption to the strict application of AD Rule 15.

The Panel finds that the AIU decision is not a sanction and that the imposition of ineligibility is not disproportionate for the failure of a Category A Member Federation to perform sufficient regular anti-doping tests. Further the Panel deems that there are no grounds to conclude that there are exceptional circumstances to allow an exemption.

Therefore on 3 August 2021 the CAS AD Hoc Division decides:

1. The application filed by Mr. Nazar Kovalenko on 1 August 2021 is rejected.

2. The Parties bear their own costs.

CAS OG_2020_06 World Athletics vs Alex Wilson & Antidoping Switzerland & Swiss Olympic

27 Jul 2021
  • CAS OG 20/06 World Athletics v. Alex Wilson, Swiss Anti-Doping & Swiss Olympic
  • CAS OG 20/08 WADA v. Alex Wilson, Swiss Anti-Doping & Swiss Olympic

  • CAS ad hoc Division (OG Tokyo) 20/006 & 20/008 World Athletics (WA) & World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Alex Wilson, Swiss Anti-Doping & Swiss Olympic

  • Athletics (sprint)
  • Doping (epitrenbolone)
  • Jurisdiction ratione temporis of the CAS ad hoc Division
    Conditions to lift a mandatory provisional suspension

1. The CAS ad hoc Division only has jurisdiction to deal with disputes which arise during the Olympic Games or during a period of ten days preceding the Opening Ceremony. In general, the date when a dispute arises is the date of the decision with which the applicant disagrees. However, such a date can arise later, in some cases, if, for example, it is necessary for the applicant to wait until the full case file and necessary documentation is received in order to enable it to determine whether there is a dispute concerning the decision.

2. Pursuant to Article 7.4.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), a mandatory provisional suspension may be eliminated if the athlete demonstrates to the hearing panel that the anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) is likely to have involved a contaminated product. Article 7.4.1 of the Swiss Anti-Doping Rules (Swiss ADR) reflecting the WADC provides that the mandatory provisional suspension can only be lifted if the athlete demonstrates that it was probable that the ADRV was caused by a contaminated product. Thus, the test for the hearing panel is not only whether the positive finding could have been caused by a contaminated product. The two tests are not the same and that they impose very different burdens on the athlete and necessitate very different analyses of the evidence.



In April 2021 Antidoping Switzerland reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swiss Athlete Alex Wilson after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Trenbolone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered which was callenged by the Athlete in May 2021. The Athlete requested the Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic to lift the provisional suspension in order to participate in the outdoor season and the Tokyo Olympic Games.

The Athlete argued that the source of the positive test was  contaminated meat he had ingested in a restaurant in Las Vegas, USA, in March 2021. On 2 July 2021 the Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic decided to lift the provisional suspension imposed on the Athlete.

Hereafter on 22 and 24 July 2021 both World Athletics and WADA appealed the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber with the CAS Ad Hoc Division. They requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and for the imposition of the provisional suspension with immediate effect.

The Athlete raised a number of challenges to jurisdiction of the CAS Ad Hoc Division. However the Panel deems that it has jurisdiction to hear the filed applications and that they are admissible.

Based on the evidence the Panel concludes that the Athlete has not satisfied it that, on the balance of probabilities, it is likely or probable that the Trenbolone came from contaminated meat in the circumstances presently described by the Athlete.

The Panel finds that the evidence available so far clearly shows that the provisional suspension imposed on the Athlete should not have been lifted by the Disciplinary Chamber. It follows that the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber of 2 July 2021 should not be reinstated and, thus, the mandatory provisional suspension shall be reinstated with immediate effect.

Therefore the CAS Ad Hoc Panel decides on 27 July 2021:

  1. The Ad Hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by World Athletics on 22 July 2021 and by WADA on 24 July 2021.
  2. The applications filed by World Athletics and by WADA on 22 and, respectively, 24 July 2021 are upheld.
  3. The Decision rendered on 2 July 2021 by the Disciplinary Chamber of Swiss Olympic is set aside.
  4. The provisional suspension imposed on Mr Alex Wilson by Antidoping Switzerland on 28 April 2021 shall be reinstated with immediate effect.
  5. Each Party shall bear its own legal costs and other expenses incurred by this procedure.
Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin