CAS 2020/ADD/12 Badminton World Federation v. Clement Krobakpo

In July 2020 the Disciplinary Committee of the Organizing Committee of the African Games decided to disqualify the Nigerian badminton player Clement Krobakpo after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Clenbuterol, Heptaminol and Octodrine. The case was referred to the Badminton World Federation (BWF) and hereafter in August 2020 the BWF reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete.

In September 2020 the BWF filed a request for Arbitration with the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS ADD) as first-instance authority. The Sole Arbitrator renders a decision without a hearing based on the Parties' written submissions. 

The Athlete accepted the test result, admitted het violation and denied the intentional use of the substances. He could not explain the presence of the low concentration of Clenbuterol in his sample and suggested that imported contaminated meat in Nigeria had caused the positive test. Further he asserted that the energy drink Freedom Juice he had used was the source of Heptaminol and Octodrine. He had mentioned this product on the Doping Control Form while he was unaware that it contained the ingredient 2-aminoisoheptane (Octodrine). 

The BWF accepted that the energy drink Freed Juice was the source of the Heptaminol and Octodrine and that this violation was unintentional. Yet the BWF contended that the Athlete failed to establish the how the prohibited substance Clenbuterol had entered his system. 

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that it is undisputed that the energy drink he had used was the source of the positive test. Further the Arbitrator holds that the Athlete only had offered speculation to explain the meat contamination and consequently that this defence must be rejected. Finally the Sole Arbitrator considers that there were substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 January 2021 that:

1. The request for arbitration filed by the Badminton World Federation on 25 September 2020 against Mr. Clement Krobakpo is upheld.
2. Mr. Clement Krobakpo committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with the Badminton World Federation’s Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the 2019 African Games in Rabat, Morocco.
3. Mr. Clement Krobakpo is sanctioned with a 4-year period of ineligibility starting from 16 October 2020.
4. All competitive results obtained by Mr. Clement Krobakpo from 25 August 2019 through the date of his provisional suspension are disqualified, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes.
5. (…).
6. (…).
7. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2020/ADD/11 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Vladimir Nikolov

• Volleyball
• Doping (methyltestosterone)
• Jurisdiction of the CAS Anti-Doping Division
• Mitigating circumstances influencing on the consequences of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation
• Individual sanction in relation to team’s sport
  
  

1. According to Article A2 of the CAS Anti-Doping Division (ADD) Rules, CAS ADD shall be the first-instance authority to conduct proceedings and issue decisions when an alleged anti-doping rule violation has been filed with it and for imposition of any sanctions resulting from a finding that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. CAS ADD has jurisdiction to rule as a first-instance authority on behalf of any sports entity which has formally delegated its powers to CAS ADD to conduct anti-doping proceedings and impose applicable sanctions. CAS ADD shall also have jurisdiction in case of alleged doping violations linked with any re-analysis of samples.

2. Mitigating circumstances, such as lack of intent, lack of knowledge, possibility of consumption of supplements containing the Prohibited Substance and the small quantity of the substance detected, even if proven, are irrelevant to establish whether an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) was committed. An athlete’s fault or negligence are elements taken into consideration in determining the consequences of an ADRV.

3. In case of a team’s sport, there are no “athlete’s results” but only team results. However, on the basis of art. 8.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules, the Olympic Diploma and pin an athlete was awarded as a consequence of his/her participation to the relevant Olympic Games can be ordered to be returned to the IOC as a result of his/her ADRV.

Mr Vladimir Nikolo is a Bulgarina volleyball player at the London 2012 Olympic Games. 

In 2018, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012. 

In January 2020 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IOC, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2012 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methyltestosterone. 

Hereafter in August 2020 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) filed a request for Arbitration with the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS ADD) as first-instance authority. The Sole Arbitrator renders a decision without a hearing based on the Parties' written submissions. 

The Athlete accepted the test result, admitted the violation and denied intentional use. He was tested before without issues and could not explain how the substance had entered his system. He assumed that a contaminated supplement might have been the source of the positive test since only a very low concentration of the substance was found in his samples. 

The IOC contended that the presence of the prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation. 

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that there is sufficient proof that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. Any mitigating circumstanced invoked by the Athlete in his defence, even if proven, are not relevant to establish whether an anti-doping rule violation was committed.

The Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete may have an opportunity to explain the circumstances at a later stage of the prosecution of the anti-doping rule violation. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 October 2020 that:

1. The request for arbitration filed by the International Olympic Committee on 28 August 2020 against Mr. Vladimir Nikolov is upheld.
2. Mr. Vladimir Nikolov committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with the International Olympic Committee’s Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXX Olympiad, London 2012.
3. Mr. Vladimir Nikolov shall return the Olympic diploma and pin he received on the occasion of the XXX Olympiad, London 2012.
4. (…).
5. (…).
6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2020/ADD/8 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Martina Ratej

• Athletics (javelin)
• Doping (clostebol)
• Establishment of the violation of the anti-doping rule
  Sanction

1. Pursuant to Article 2.1.2. of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), sufficient proof of an anti-doping violation under Article 2.1. of WADC is established by the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its metabolites in the A Sample “where the Athlete waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analysed…”. The mitigating circumstances invoked by the athlete in defense of her adverse analytical finding are not relevant to establish whether an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) was committed. Indeed, according to the WADC, an athlete’s fault or negligence are elements taken into consideration in determining the consequences of an ADRV, not the commitment of the violation itself.

2. Under Article 7.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the 2012 London Olympics (ADR), a violation in individual sports in connection with doping control automatically leads to disqualification of the athlete’s results in the competition in question, with all other consequences related thereto as applicable including forfeiture of any medals, points and/or prizes. The sanctioning system provided for by the IOC ADR – once an ADRV has been established – prevents CAS panel from considering mitigating circumstances. Pursuant to the IOC ADR, without delegation of its powers to the CAS ADD to conduct further anti-doping proceedings and impose applicable sanctions, the CAS ADD does not have jurisdiction to hear any aspect related to sanctions over and above those relating to the Olympic Games. This aspect of the procedure is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the International Federation.

Ms Martina Ratej is a Slovenian Athlete competing in the Women’s Javelin throw event at the London 2012 Olympic Games. 

In 2018, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2012 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2012. 

In January 2020 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IOC, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2012 sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Clostebol. 

Hereafter in May 2020 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) filed a request for Arbitration with the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS ADD) as first-instance authority. The Sole Arbitrator renders a decision without a hearing based on the Parties' written submissions. 

The Athlete accepted the test result and denied the intentional use of the substance. She explained that she underwent treatment for a medical urgency and that the prescribed medication Trofodermin Creme, containing Clostebol, was the source of the positive test.

She asserted that she was tested before without issues and after medical treatment the Slovenian Anti-Doping Organization deemed that she did not need a TUE.  

The IOC contended that the presence of the prohibited substance had been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that she had committed an anti-doping rule violation. 

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that there is sufficient proof that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. Any mitigating circumstanced invoked by the Athlete in his defence, even if proven, are not relevant to establish whether an anti-doping rule violation was committed. The Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete may have an opportunity to explain the circumstances at a later stage of the prosecution of the anti-doping rule violation. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 July 2020 that:

1. The request for arbitration filed by the International Olympic Committee on 6 May 2020 against Ms. Martina Ratej is upheld.
2. Ms. Martina Ratej committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with the International Olympic Committee’s Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXX Olympiad, London 2012.
3. The results obtained by Ms. Martina Ratej at the XXX Olympiad, London 2012 are disqualified with all resulting consequences including, if applicable, forfeiture of any medal, points and prizes.
4. (…).
5. (…).
6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

2020/ADD/7 International Ski Federation v. Andrus Veerpalu
2020/ADD/13 International Ski Federation v. Andrus Veerpalu

Related cases:

• CAS 2011_A_2566 Andrus Veerpalu vs International Ski Federation
  March 25, 2013
• CAS 2020_A_6781 Andrus Veerpalu vs FIS
  July 21, 2020
• FIS 2011 FIS vs Andrus Veerpalu
  August 21, 2011

During the FIS 2019 Nordic World Ski Championships in Austria from 19 February to 3 March 2019, the Austrian police raided the belongings of several athletes and athlete support personnel from Austria, Estonia and Kazakhstan on suspicion of violating Austrian anti-doping laws. Simultaneously, German police officers searched the medical practice of Dr Mark Schmidt in Erfurt, Germany. This joint police operation became publicly known as the Operation Aderlass. 

The police searched the hotel room of the Athlete Andrus Veerpalu in Seefeld during the raid and found a heavy box containing medical equipment, supplements and prohibited substances. The same hotel room was also used by the Athlete Alexey Poltoranin for prohibited blood doping treatments. 

Following the police raids in Seefeld and Erfurt, law enforcement authorities of Germany, Austria and Estonia initiated criminal investigations and proceedings against a number of athletes and support personnel.

The Austrian and German Police provided the International Ski Federation (FIS) with all the evidence and intelligence they had gathered in the context of the Operation Aderlass such as minutes of wire-taped conversations and in-person interrogations, mobile phone messages, surveillance photos and indices of confiscated items. 

As a result in September 2019 FIS openend proceedings against the Athlete Andrus Veerpalu and reported an anti-doping rule violation for Complicity and his failure to cooperate in full with the FIS investigations. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and FIS filed a request for arbitration with the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS ADD). 

FIS contended that the final report of the Austrian Police constitutes clear evidence that the Athlete committed anti-doping rule violations. The evidence shows that the Athlete granted access to his hotel room to Dr Mark Schmidt to perform blood transfusion on the Athlete Alexey Poltoranin thereby being an accomplice to Alexey Poltoranin’s admitted blood doping during the World Championships in Seefeld.

In addition FIS contended that there is evidence that the Athlete purchased the prohibited product IGF-1 from one of Dr Mark Schmidt’s providers of prohibited substances. 

The Athlete disputed the jurisdiction of the CAS ADD in this case and denied that he had knowledge at all of the doping scheme admittedly organized and orchestrated by the manager of the Estonian team. He stated that he had no links to the Estonia team and worked only as a service staff member for the team of Kazakhstan.

The Athlete only acknowledged that in December 2016 he had picked-up a parcel. He was told that it contained medication for the Athlete Alexey Poltoranin and in return he gave an envelop with money to a person. 

The CAS ADD Sole Arbitrator establishes that the alteration in the disciplinary body from FIS Doping Panel to the CAS ADD in the 2019 FIS ADR being procedural, applied to the Athlete and confirms the jurisdiction of the CAS ADD to decide this matter. 

Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator is comfortably convinced that the Athlete not only was aware but also was actively involved in allowing Dr Mark Schmidt to perform blood doping on Alexey Poltoranin by storing necessary equipment and granting access to his room. By doing so he committed an anti-doping rule violation by being intentionally complicit in the blood doping performed on Alexey Poltoranin. 

Further the Sole Arbitrator is convinced that by purchasing IGF-1 from of Dr Schmidt’s providers on 4 December 2016 he intentionally aided and assisted the doping practice of an Estonian Athlete and other members of the Estonian Team. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 17 March 2021 that:

1. The Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction to decide on the subject matter of this dispute.
2. The request for arbitration filed by the International Ski Federation is admissible.
3. Andrus Veerpalu is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.9 FIS ADR 2016.
4. Andrus Veerpalu is sanctioned with a 2-year period of ineligibility starting from the date of the final CAS ADD Award.
5. (…).
6. (…).
7. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2020/A/7377 El Mahjoub Dazza v. World Athletics

Related case:

World Athletics 2020 WA vs El Mahjoub Dazza
July 24, 2020

In January 2020 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Moroccan Athlete El Mahjoub Dazza after an AIU Expert Panel concluded unanimously in October 2019 in their Joint Expert Opinion that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping.

Consequently the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decided on 24 July 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in August 2020 the Athlete appealed the Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Without a hearing the Panel rendered an Award based on the Parties' written submissions.

The Athlete denied the violation and supported by an expert witness he disputed the validity of the ABP. He asserted that the values in his ABP could be explained as a result of high altitude and his training regime.

Further the Athlete argued that in First Instance several of his procedural rights were violated and that these violations should lead to the annulment of the Appealed Decision and the four-year period of ineligibility imposed on him.

The Panel holds that even in case the Athlete's procedural rights had been violated in the proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal, any such violation was in any event cured in the present arbitration before CAS under its de nova competence.

Considering the evidence in this case the Panel deems that the values detected in the Athlete's ABP were highly abnormal and indicated a high probability of doping while the Athlete had not submitted any contradictory evidence.

On that account the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the abnormal values were caused by a blood doping scenario.  Accordingly the Panel concludes that the Athlete had committed and anti-doping rule violation without grounds for a reduced sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 23 April 2021 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 19 August 2020 by Mr El Mahjoub Dazza with the Court of Arbitration for Sport against the decision rendered on 24 July 2020 by the World Athletics (IAAF) Disciplinary Tribunal is dismissed.

2.) The decision rendered on 24 July 2020 by the World Athletics (IAAF) Disciplinary Tribunal is confirmed.

3.) This award is pronounced without costs, except for the CAS Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Mr El Mahjoub Dazza, which is retained by the CAS.

4.) Mr El Mahjoub Dazza is ordered to pay to World Athletics (IAAF) the amount of CHF 3,000 (three thousand Swiss Francs) as a contribution towards its the legal fees and expenses incurred in relation to the present proceedings.

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

CAS 2020/A/7250 Gomathi Marimuthu v. World Athletics

Related case:

World Athletics 2019 WA vs Gomathi Marimuthu
May 26, 2020

In June 2019 the India National Anti-Doping Agency (INADA) reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete Gomathi Marimuthu after her A and B samples, provided during four competitions in March and April 2019, tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Consequently the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decided on 26 May 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

In First Instance the Disciplinary Panel deemed that the Athlete had failed to explain how exactly the alleged departures in sample collection, handling and analysis could potentially influence the outcome of the laboratory analysis.

Further the Panel deemed that the Athlete failed to produce evidence that she suffered from a medical condition nor demonstrated with evidence how this medical condition or her physical activity could have effected the 19-norandrosterone level in her system.

Hereafter in June 2020 the Athlete appealed the Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Decision of 26 May 2020 and for the imposition of a reduced sanction.

The Athlete asserted that there had been several departures from the ISTI and ISL regarding the chain of custody and the storage of the samples. Also she claimed that her miscarriage and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) could explain the high concentration of endogenous 19-Norandrosterone in her system.

World Athletics contented that the alleged discrepancies regarding the Athlete's samples are not significant departures of the ISL and ISTI and they would not invalidate the test results. Also the Athlete's alleged miscarriage and PCOS cannot explain the presence of the prohibited substance 19-Norandrosterone in her system.

Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator finds that the Athlete's PCOS, her pregnancy and miscarriage cannot explain the high concentration of 19-Norandrosterone in her samples. Regarding the sampling and the testing process the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the alleged discrepancies were significant departures that could have caused the positive test results.

Finally the Sole Arbitrator holds that the Athlete failed to show the absence of guilt or negligence. Conversely from the beginning she has expressed consternation and disbelief, and cannot account for the presence of the prohibited substance.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 23 April 2021 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 22 June 2020 by Ms Gomathi Marimuthu against World Athletics with respect to the Decision issued on 26 May 2020 by World Athletics' Disciplinary Tribunal is rejected.

2.)The Decision of the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal on 26 May 2020 is upheld.

3.) This arbitral award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Ms Gomathi Marimuthu, which is retained by CAS.

4.) Each party shall bear their own legal and other costs.

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

CAS 2020/A/6988 Andrey Isaychev v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency RUSADA

• Athletics (middle-distance running)
• Doping (prohibited association)
• Methods of interpretation of legal/regulatory provisions
• Requirements of the prohibited association rule
• Burden and standard of proof under the Russian Anti-
• Doping Rules (ADR) in relation to an anti-doping rule violation
• Appeal arbitration dispute decided ex aequo et bono

1. Under Swiss law, if the provision under review is clear and unambiguous, an authority applying it is bound to follow its literal meaning, provided it expresses its true meaning. Only if a text is not clear and if several interpretations are possible, one must determine its true scope by analysing its relation with other provisions (systematic interpretation), its legislative history (historic interpretation) and the spirit and intent of such provision (teleological interpretation). It is not for CAS panels to question the policy or intent of anti-doping rule makers, in particular given that the WADA Code emphasises that “when reviewing the facts and the law of a given case, all (…) adjudicating bodies should be aware of and respect the distinct nature of the anti-doping rules in the Code and the fact that those rules represent the consensus of a broad spectrum of stakeholders around the world with an interest in fair sport”.

2. It is unambiguous that for article 2.10 of the Russian ADR to be applied to an athlete, s/he must have been previously advised in writing by a relevant anti-doping agency of said athlete support person’s disqualifying status and of the potential consequence of a prohibited association and that said athlete can reasonably avoid the association.

3. According to article 3.1 of the Russian ADR, the RUSADA shall have the burden of establishing that an ADR violation has occurred. The Standard of proof shall be whether the RUSADA has established an ADR violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made.

4. It is accepted that the arbitral tribunal could decide ex aequo et bono also in appeal proceedings (pursuant to Article R58 of the CAS Code), if the parties so agree.

• Mr Andrey Isaychev is a Russian track athlete participating in competitions organized, convened, authorized or recognized by RusAF. 
• Mr. Vladimir Semenovich Kazarin is a Russian athletics coach, training short, middle and long-distance runners.

On 7 April 2017 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decided to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Coach Kazarin (CAS 2016/A/4480) for committing anti-doping rule violations: Possession, Trafficking, and Administration of multiple Prohibited Substances. 

The Athlete was aware that the Coach had been banned from officially training athletes, yet he continued training unofficially with the Coach. Previously on 19 July 2018 the Athlete had signed an acknowledgment form regarding Order 37 which listed the names of disqualified Russian coaches prohibited from training athletes. 

In June 2019 RUSADA reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for Prohibited Association with the Coach. Consequently the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee decided on 17 December 2019 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. 

Hereafter in April 2020 the Athlete appealed the RUSADA Decision with CAS. 

In this Appeal it is undisputed between the Parties that:

• (i) the Athlete was aware that the Coach had been banned from training athletes;
• (ii) the Athlete trained with the Coach after the Coach was banned by the CAS in 2017; and
• (iii) in July 2018 the Athlete signed the acknowledgment form that referred to the Order 37.

However the Parties disagree whether the Order 37 was presented or made available to the Athlete at the time of signing the acknowledgement form.

The Athlete denied he committed an anti-doping rule violation and requested compensation for sustained damages. He asserted that before he signed the acknowledgment form on 19 July 2018 the Order 37 itself was not provided to him. He and other athletes testified that no one had explained the content of the Order 37, nor made the Order 37 available for their review. 

The Sole Arbitrator scrutinized the Prohibited Association Rule and concludes that, in order to establish a violation of Article 2.10 of the ADR applicable in this case, the Athlete ought to have first been advised in writing by an anti-doping organization with jurisdiction over the Athlete of the Coach's disqualifying status and the potential consequence of prohibited association therewith. Failing to do so, a violation cannot properly be established. 

Further the Sole Arbitrator assessed the issue as to whether an advanced written notice was servered to the Athlete prior to establishing a violation of Article 2.10 of the ADR.

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that RUSADA did not establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator that the Athlete was previously advised in writing by an anti-doping agency of the Coach's disqualifying status and the potential consequences of prohibited association.

Accordingly, RUSADA did not establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator that the Athlete infringed Article 2.10 of the ADR. 

The Sole Arbitrator observes that the Athlete did not submit any evidence that he sustained damages due to the alleged misconduct by RUSADA. He did not substantiate in any manner the amount of damages, nor established a nexus between RUSADA’s alleged misconduct and any alleged moral damages or financial loss incurred by the Athlete. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 April 2021 that: 

1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Andrey Isaychev on 15 April 2020 against the Russian AntiDoping Agency with respect to the decision no. 21/2020 of 17 December 2019 of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of Russian Anti-Doping Agency is partially upheld.

2.) The decision no. 20/2020 of 17 December 2019 of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of Russian Anti-Doping Agency is set aside.

3.) All individual results earned by Mr. Andrey Isaychev from 15 November 2018 are reinstated.

4.) The request for compensation filed by Mr. Andrey Isaychev is dismissed.

5.) The costs of the present arbitration, to be determined and separately communicated to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be shall be borne by 20% by Mr. Andrey Isaychev and by 80% by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency.

6.) The Russian Anti-Doping Agency is ordered to contribute to the legal fees and expenses incurred by Mr. Andrey Isaychev in the amount of CHF 4,500 (four thousand five hundred Swiss francs).

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

CAS 2020/A/6987 RudolfVerkhovykh v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency RUSADA

• Athletics (sprint)
• Doping (prohibited association)
• Methods of interpretation of legal/regulatory provisions
• Requirements of the prohibited association rule
• Form of the previous advice in writing set forth in the prohibited association rule
• Burden and standard of proof under the Russian Anti-
• Doping Rules (ADR) in relation to an anti-doping rule violation
• Invalid justification for a continued prohibited association between an athlete and a coach
• Appeal arbitration dispute decided ex aequo et bono
• Right to be heard

1. Under Swiss law, if the provision under review is clear and unambiguous, an authority applying it is bound to follow its literal meaning, provided it expresses its true meaning. Only if a text is not clear and if several interpretations are possible, must one determine its true scope by analysing its relation with other provisions (systematic interpretation), its legislative history (historic interpretation) and the spirit and intent of such provision (teleological interpretation). It is not for CAS panels to question the policy or intent of anti-doping rule makers, in particular given that the WADA Code emphasises that “when reviewing the facts and the law of a given case, all (…) adjudicating bodies should be aware of and respect the distinct nature of the anti-doping rules in the Code and the fact that those rules represent the consensus of a broad spectrum of stakeholders around the world with an interest in fair sport”.

2. It is unambiguous that for article 2.10 of the Russian ADR to be applied to an athlete, s/he must have been previously advised in writing by a relevant anti-doping agency of said athlete support person’s disqualifying status and of the potential consequence of a prohibited association and that said athlete can reasonably avoid the association.

3. The form of the written notice set forth in art. 2.10 of the Russian ADR is not specified. The model template contained in the WADA Guidelines is not mandatory to use and said Guidelines do not prohibit that such statement be prepared by an athlete upon specific oral instructions from an anti-doping organization.

4. According to article 3.1 of the Russian ADR, the RUSADA shall have the burden of establishing that an ADR violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the RUSADA has established an ADR violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made.

• Mr Rudolf Verkhovykh is a Russian track athlete participating in competitions organized, convened, authorized or recognized by RusAF.  
• Mr. Vladimir Semenovich Kazarin is a Russian athletics coach, training short, middle and long-distance runners.

On 7 April 2017 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decided to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Coach Kazarin (CAS 2016/A/4480) for committing anti-doping rule violations: Possession, Trafficking, and Administration of multiple Prohibited Substances.  

However the Athlete continued training unofficially with the Coach until April 2019. Previously on 30 October 2018 the Athlete had produced a written statement indicating that he was aware that he was prohibited to associate with the Coach.

In June 2019 RUSADA reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for Prohibited Association with the Coach. Consequently the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee decided on 17 December 2019 to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.  

Hereafter in April 2020 the Athlete appealed the RUSADA Decision with CAS.

In this Appeal it is undisputed between the Parties that: 

• (i) the Athlete was aware that the Coach had been banned from training athletes;
• (ii) the Athlete trained with the Coach after the Coach was banned by the CAS in 2017; and
• (iii) in October 2018 the Athlete had a meeting with a RUSADA official, during which the Athlete produced a written statement. 

However, the following principal issues are disputed between the Parties: 

• Is it necessary that an athlete has been previously advised in writing by an antidoping agency of the athlete support person's disqualifying status and the potential consequences of prohibited association before an athlete could be sanctioned for a violation of Article 2.10 of the ADR?
• If so, did the Athlete's written statement prepared on 30 October 2018 satisfy this requirement?

The Athlete denied he committed an anti-doping rule violation and requested compensation for sustained damages. He believed that the Coach could train him unofficially and he was unaware of the allegations against the Coach.

He argued that his written statement prepared by him on 30 October 2018 was not a valid written notice within the meaning of Article 2.10 of the ADR. He also asserted that he did not receive any written notice from RUSADA. 

The Sole Arbitrator scrutinized the Prohibited Association Rule and concludes that, in order to establish a violation of Article 2.10 of the ADR applicable in this case, the Athlete ought to have first been advised in writing by an anti-doping organization with jurisdiction over the Athlete of the Coach's disqualifying status and the potential consequence of prohibited association therewith. Failing to do so, a violation cannot properly be established.  

Further the Sole Arbitrator assessed the issue as to whether an advanced written notice was servered to the Athlete prior to establishing a violation of Article 2.10 of the ADR. 

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that RUSADA established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation of Article 2.10 of the ADR. The Athlete had received a written notice under Article 2.10 of the ADR from RUSADA on 30 October 2018.

Furthermore, it is undisputed between the Parties that the Athlete nonetheless continued to associate with the Coach as the Athlete participated in training activities with the Coach on 15 November 2018 and 22 April 2019 in the Republic of Kyrgyzstan. 

The Sole Arbitrator observes that the Athlete did not submit any evidence that he sustained damages due to the alleged misconduct by RUSADA. He did not substantiate in any manner the amount of damages, nor established a nexus between RUSADA’s alleged misconduct and any alleged moral damages or financial loss incurred by the Athlete.  

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 April 2021 that:  

1.) The appeal filed on 15 April 2020, by Mr. Rudolf Verkovykh against the decision no. 22/2020 of 17 December 2019 issued by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of Russian Anti-Doping Agency, is dismissed.

2.) The decision no. 22/2020 of 17 December 2019 of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of Russian Anti-Doping Agency is upheld.

3.) The costs of this arbitration, to be determined by the CAS Court Office, shall be paid by Mr. Rudolf Verkovykh.

4.) Each Party shall bear their own costs incurred m connection with the present proceedings.

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