Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

Used filter(s): 934 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 2020_A_6986 Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova vs RUSADA

6 Apr 2021

CAS 2020/A/6986 Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova 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, 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. 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.

Ms Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova 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 she continued training with the Coach until the end of 2019. Previously on 21 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 Appellant 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 she committed an anti-doping rule violation and requested compensation for sustained damages. She asserted that before she signed the acknowledgment form on 21 July 2018 the Order 37 itself was not provided to her. She 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 she sustained damages due to the alleged misconduct by RUSADA. She 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 Mrs. Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova on 15 April 2020 against the Russian Anti-Doping Agency with respect to the decision no. 20/2020 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 Mrs. Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova from 15 November 2018 are reinstated.

4.) The request for compensation filed by Mrs. Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova 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 borne by 20% by Mrs. Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova 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 Mrs. Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova in the amount of CHF 4,500 (four thousand five hundred Swiss francs).

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

show original document » details »

CAS 2020_A_6981 Thai Amateur Weightlifting Association (TAWA) et al vs IWF

8 Apr 2021

CAS 2020/A/6981 Thai Amateur Weightlifting Association (TAWA) et al. v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)

In October 2018, during the Youth Olympic Games in Argentina, one Thai athlete tested positive for exogenous testosterone. A few weeks later, during the IWF World Championships held between 1-10 November 2018 in Turkmenistan, nine Thai athletes tested positive for exogenous testosterone, that is, half of the Thai delegation. Prior to these in-competition controls, on 11 October 2018, twenty Thai athletes had been targeted for an out-of-competition in their training camp in Chiang Mai, and fifteen of them returned AAFs for the same substance, exogenous testosterone.

These numerous adverse analytical findings (AAFs) created a major crisis for TAWA and its national team and TAWA appointed an investigation committee to analyze these AAFs.

At the same time reanalysis of samples of the Beijing (2008) and London (2012) Olympic Games revealed numerous anti-doping rule violations committed by weightlifting athletes.

Due to the IOC considered excluding the sport of weightlifting from the Olympic program the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) and its Member Federations were forced to implement efficient anti-doping controls and policies.

Consequently on 1 April 2020 the IWF Panel concluded that the actions of TAWA had brought the sport of weightlifting into disrepute and decided to impose a fine and a 3 year period of ineligibility on TAWA. Further TAWA and its athletes were excluded to participate in the Tokyo Summmer Olympic Games.

Hereafter in April 2020 TAWA and the members of the Thai national team appealed the IWF Decision of 1 April 2020 with the Court of Arbiration for Sport (CAS).

TAWA and all its affiliated athletes agreed not to participate in the Tokyo Summer Olympic Games. Yet they requested the Panel that as from 1 April 2020 no sanction shall be imposed on TAWA and its affiliated athletes.

The Appellants asserted the CAS jurisdiction and standing to appeal of the Athletes and raised procedural issues regarding the conduct of the proceedings by the IWF Panel. Finally, the Appellants addressed substantive claims regarding the Appealed Decision.

As a result of the Parties’ submissions the CAS Panel examined and ruled about the following issues:

The procedural flaws of the proceedings by the IWF Panel alleged by the Appellants and the Appellants’ criticism of the IWF sanction system
The Application of a sanction under Article 12.7 IWF ADP for bringing disrepute to the sport of weightlifting
Whether the Appealed Decision breached the principle of legality
Whether the criteria used for imposing a fine were wrong
Whether the Appealed Decisions goes against the prohibition against double jeopardy (i.e., ne bis in idem)
Whether the Appealed Decision breaches the principle nulla poena sine culpa
Whether the Appealed Decision is discriminatory and amounts to a collective punishment
Whether the sanctions determined in the Appealed Decision are grossly disproportionate
TAWA’s measures to fight doping
The circumstances of the ADRVs
The conduct of TAWA
The consequences of the Undertaking and of the Challenged Decision
The COVID-19 crisis
Principle of proportionality
Whether the Appealed Decision breaches the Appellants’ personality rights

Ultimately the Court of Arbitration for Sports decides on 8 April 2021 that:

1.) The Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed by the Thai Amateur Weightlifting Association, et al. against the International Weightlifting Federation against the decision rendered by the IWF Panel on 1 April 2020.

2.) The appeal filed by the Thai Amateur Weightlifting Association, et al. against the International Weightlifting Federation against the decision rendered by the IWF Panel on 1 April 2020 is partially upheld.

3.) The decision rendered by the IWF Panel on 1 April 2020 is set aside and replaced as follows:

a.) TAWA junior athletes (athletes under the age of 18 at the time of the AAFs in October/November 2018) shall not be allowed to participate in IWF Events until 5 months following the 1st Online PanAm Cup LIVE by ZKC, i.e. until 18 December 2020.
b.) All other TAWA athletes shall not be allowed to participate in IWF Events until 11 months following the 1st Online PanAm Cup LIVE by ZKC, i.e. until 18 June 2021. This sanction may be lifted as early as 18 December 2020 upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth at section (g) below.
c.) No TAWA athlete shall be eligible to participate in the XXXII Summer Olympic Games, whenever those Games may occur.
d.) Except for the early participation opportunity for TAWA athletes to participate in IWF Events after the dates set forth above, TAWA is suspended for a period of 3 years through 1 April 2023.
e.) Except for TAWA athletes not being allowed to participate in IWF Events, TAWA technical officials or other TAWA representatives are allowed to participate in IWF activities.
f.) TAWA officials are suspended for 2 years through 1 April 2022 and are not eligible to be appointed to any IWF position so long as TAWA remains suspended.
g.) The 3-year suspension of TAWA may be lifted on or after 7 March 2022 if TAWA can demonstrate to the IWF Independent Monitoring Group:
- i) TAWA athletes, athlete support personnel and officials are receiving anti-doping education at a level which complies with the WADA International Standard for Education;
- ii) TAWA provides evidence that, notwithstanding the fact that the Sports Authority of Thailand is the party contracting with coaches working at the Chiang Mai training center, TAWA has the authority to vet and approve any coach hired by the Sports Authority of Thailand to coach TAWA athletes. Further, prior to approving the hiring of any weightlifting coach training TAWA athletes at the Chiang Mai training center, or other TAWA national team training center or camp, TAWA will thoroughly investigate that coach’s anti-doping background, for example prior antidoping rule violations committed by that coach or one of his/her athletes, whether that coach comes from a country or countries with a track record of doping in weightlifting and whether the coach is familiar with the basic principles of the IWF ADP together with the potential causes of unintentional anti-doping rule violations.
- iii) TAWA shall actively supervise any coach working with its athletes at the Chiang Mai training center or other TAWA national team training center or camp, TAWA shall provide evidence that it has the authority to have the coach removed when that coach’s performance is not consistent with best practices of anti-doping.
- iv) The fine set forth below has been paid in full.
h.) The fine imposed on TAWA shall be $200,000.00.

4.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by the Thai Amateur Weightlifting Association (TAWA) et al, which is retained by the CAS.

5.) The Thai Amateur Weightlifting Association (TAWA) is ordered to pay the International Weightlifting Federation a total amount of five thousand Swiss francs (CHF 5,000) as a contribution towards the expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

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

show original document » details »

CAS 2019_A_6168 Ivan Ukhov vs IAAF

6 Apr 2021

CAS 2019/A/6168 Ivan Ukhov v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)

Related case:

CAS 2018_O_5668 IAAF vs RusAF & Ivan Ukhov
February 1, 2019

Athletics (high jump)
Doping (desoxymethyltestosterone)
Admissibility of the appeal in case the national association is not named as the respondent
Means of evidence
Influence of a doping plan or scheme on establishing ADRVs in individual cases
Assessment of circumstancial evidence
Distinction between liability and sanction with regard to the state of knowledge of the athlete
Doping plan or scheme as aggravating circumstance in the assessment of the period of ineligibility
Disqualification of results

1. According to Rule 42.18 of the 2016 IAAF Competition Rules, “as a general rule, the respondent to a CAS appeal shall be the party which has taken the decision that is subject to appeal. Where the Member has delegated the conduct of a hearing (…) in accordance with Rule 38.5, the respondent to the CAS appeal against such decision shall be the member”. The words “as a general rule” are indicative that this provision does not lay down conditions that are mandatory in every case and in all circumstances. In addition, the requirement that an appeal must be brought against “the member” is expressly limited to circumstances where that member “has delegated the conduct of a hearing … in accordance with Rule 38.5”. However, where a national association ceases to be a member of the IAAF for any reason, it is impossible for it to conduct a hearing and therefore there is no proper “delegation” within the meaning of Rule 38.5. In such a case, there is no mandatory rule requiring to bring the appeal against the national association.

2. The IAAF Competition Rules make no distinction between “direct” and “circumstantial” evidence, nor do they specify that evidence must have been created or obtained specifically for the purpose of proving anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs). They state that the party with the burden of proving an ADRV – may resort to “any reliable means”. The use of the word “any” makes clear that there is no restriction on the type or nature of evidence that may be adduced. However, findings of fact can only be reached on the basis of evidence that is reliable.

3. The mere existence of a doping scheme does not suffice for the purposes of establishing ADRVs in individual cases. However, the existence of such a scheme is a relevant fact to be taken into account in the evaluation of the evidence.

4. In a case where there are various non-analytical evidentiary elements, not only each element individually, but also the global weight of the evidence as a whole should be considered. It is in the nature of circumstantial evidence that single items of evidence may each be capable of an innocent explanation but, taken together, establish guilt to the ‘comfortable satisfaction’ mandated from a tribunal before it can inculpate a sportsperson of a disciplinary offence.

5. Liability under the IAAF Competition Rules is a rule of strict liability. An ADRV is established notwithstanding any intent, fault, negligence or knowledge on the part of the athlete. By contrast to the issue of liability, the state of knowledge of the athlete is relevant to the question of sanction.

6. In the circumstances, where it cannot be shown that an athlete was aware of the existence of a wider doping plan or scheme at the time the prohibited substances were used, the mere existence of such plan or scheme does not, of itself, amount to an aggravating circumstance in the assessment of the period of ineligibility. This flows from the language of the relevant rule which states that the aggravating circumstance exists when the athlete committed the ADRV “as part” of that scheme.

7. When applying the wide discretion it retains in the disqualification of results, a CAS panel must be guided by the principles of fairness and proportionality.

On 16 July 2016, Professor Richard McLaren (the Independent Person or the IP) issued a first report on the allegations of systemic doping in Russia. Some of the key findings of the First IP Report were that:

the Moscow Laboratory operated, for the protection of doped Russian athletes, within a state-dictated failsafe system, described in the First IP Report as the disappearing positive methodology (DPM) and
the Ministry of Sport of the Russian Federation directed, controlled, and oversaw the manipulation of athletes' analytical results or sample swapping, with the active participation and assistance of the Russian Federal Security Service, the Center of Sports Preparation of National Teams of Russia, and both Moscow and Sochi Laboratories.

On 9 December 2016, the IP elaborated on the First IP Report and released a second report on the doping allegations in Russia, together with the First IP Report. The Second IP Report confirmed the key findings of the First IP Report and described in detail the DPM and the Washout Testing.

Within the context of the Second IP Report, the IP identified a significant number of Russian athletes who were involved in, or benefitted from, the doping schemes and practices that he uncovered. The IP made publicly available on the IP Evidence Disclosure Package (EDP) website the evidence of the involvement of the Identified Athletes. According to the IP and the IAAF, the evidence on the EDP was retrieved from the hard-drive of Dr Rodchenkov and, after the metadata of all the documents was examined, the documents were determined to have been made contemporaneously to the events.

Mr Ivan Ukhov is a Russian Athlete competing in the High Jump Athletics event at the London 2012 Olympic Games and the Moscow 2013 IAAF World Championships.

In October 2017 the IAAF (World Athletics) reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Russian Athlete based on the findings of the First and Second IP Report and the disclosed evidence.

In First Instance (CAS 2018_O_5668) the CAS Sole Arbitrator was comfortably satisfactied that the Athlete had violated the IAAF Rules through the use of Desoxymethyltestosterone (DMT) on multiple occasions during the period of 2012 and 2013. Accordingly he decided on 1 February 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in February 2019 the Athlete appealed the First Instance Decision (CAS 2018_O_5668) with the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division. The Athlete requested to annul the Appealed Decision and to declare no period of ineligibility on him or, in te alternative, to reduce his period of ineligibility.

The Athlete disputed three findings of the Sole Arbitrator in the Appealed Decision:

that the Athlete is guilty of committing ADRVs;
sanctioning the Athlete to a period of ineligibility of four years as from 1 February 2019; and
disqualifying the Athlete's results from 16 July 2012 to 31 December 2015.

The Athlete denied the use of prohibited substances and argued that he was tested before without issues. He disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by the IAAF, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenko and pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence.

The IAAF finds that the appeal is inadmissible or, in the alternative, that CAS does not have jurisdiction. If the appeals is admissible and CAS has jurisdiction it requested the Panel to dismiss the appeal.

The IAAF holds that Prof. McLaren uncovered and described a doping scheme of unprecedented proportions that pervaded and implicated the Russian sporting and governmental authorities.

Further the IAAF contended that it didn't seek to prove the charges against the Athlete on the basis of the McLaren Reports alone. The charges are based primarily on the Evidence Disclosure Package (EDP), which underpin the McLaren Reports, including the Washout Schedules.

After rejecting IAAF's challenge in relation to the nomination of RUSAF as a respondent, the Panel is satisfied, without any doubt, that the present appeal is admissible.

Considering the filed evidence in this case the majority of the Panel is comfortably satisfied that:

the Athlete used Desoxymethyltestosterone (DMT) on or shortly prior to 16 July 2012; and
the Athlete used Desoxymethyltestosterone (DMT) on or shortly prior to 28 June 2013.

In light of the fact that the Athlete used prohibited substances on two separate occasions, the Panel deems that the maximum sanction, based on aggravating circumstances, is not merited in this case. As such, the four-year period of ineligibility imposed in the Appealed Decision is set aside and replaced with a period of ineligibility of 2 years and 9 months. Also the Panel reduced the disqualification period imposed in the Appealed Decision to a period of 2 years, 5 months and 16 days.

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

1.) The Statement of Appeal filed by Mr. Ivan Ukhov with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) on 22 February 2019 is partly upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the Sole Arbitrator in CAS 2018/O/5668 IAAF v. RUSAF & Ivan Ukhov is set aside.

3.) Mr. Ivan Ukhov is suspended from competition for two (2) years and nine (9) months, starting from 1 February 2019.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Mr. Ivan Ukhov from 16 July 2012 and terminating on 31 December 2014 (inclusive) are disqualified, with all of the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points, prizes and appearance money.

5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be calculated and communicated to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the parties in equal shares.

6.) The parties shall each bear their own legal and other costs incurred in connection with these proceedings.

7.) All further requests for relief are dismissed.

show original document » details »

CAS 2019_A_6167 Ekaterina Galitskaia vs IAAF

6 Apr 2021

CAS 2019/A/6167 Ekaterina Galitskaia v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)

Related case:

CAS 2018_O_5712 IAAF vs RusAF & Ekaterina Galitskaia
February 1, 2019

Athletics (hurdles)
Doping (desoxymethyltestosterone, methasterone, trenbolone, boldenone, 1-testosterone, oxabolone, nandrolone)
Admissibility of the appeal in case the national association is not named as the respondent
Means of evidence
Influence of a doping plan or scheme on establishing ADRVs in individual cases
Assessment of circumstancial evidence
Distinction between liability and sanction with regard to the state of knowledge of the athlete
Doping plan or scheme as aggravating circumstance in the assessment of the period of ineligibility
Disqualification of results

7. When applying the wide discretion it retains in the disqualification of results, a CAS panel must be guided by the principles of fairness and proportionality.

the Moscow Laboratory operated, for the protection of doped Russian athletes, within a state-dictated failsafe system, described in the First IP Report as the disappearing positive methodology (DPM) and
the Ministry of Sport of the Russian Federation directed, controlled, and oversaw the manipulation of athletes' analytical results or sample swapping, with the active participation and assistance of the Russian Federal Security Service, the Center of Sports Preparation of National Teams of Russia, and both Moscow and Sochi Laboratories.

Ms. Yekaterina Viktorovna Galitskaya is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women’s hurdle race athletics event at the London 2012 Olympic Games.

In November 2017 the IAAF (World Athletics) reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Russian Athlete based on the findings of the First and Second IP Report and the disclosed evidence.

In First Instance (CAS 2018_O_5712) the CAS Sole Arbitrator was comfortably satisfactied that the Athlete had violated the IAAF Rules through the use of multiple prohibited substances on multiple occasions. Accordingly he decided on 1 February 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in February 2019 the Athlete appealed the First Instance Decision (CAS 2018_O_5712) with the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division. The Athlete requested to annul the Appealed Decision and to declare no period of ineligibility on her or, in te alternative, to reduce her period of ineligibility.

The Athlete disputed three findings of the Sole Arbitrator in the Appealed Decision:

that the Athlete is guilty of committing ADRVs;
sanctioning the Athlete to a period of ineligibility of four years as from 1 February 2019; and
disqualifying the Athlete's results from 15 July 2012 to 31 December 2014.

The Athlete denied the use of prohibited substances and argued that she was tested before without issues. She disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by the IAAF, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenko and pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence.

The IAAF holds that Prof. McLaren uncovered and described a doping scheme of unprecedented proportions that pervaded and implicated the Russian sporting and governmental authorities.

After rejecting IAAF's challenge in relation to the nomination of RUSAF as a respondent, the Panel is satisfied, without any doubt, that the present appeal is admissible.

Considering the filed evidence in this case the majority of the Panel is comfortably satisfied that:

the Athlete used Desoxymethyltestosterone (DMT) on or shortly prior to 15 July 2012; and
the Athlete used Methasterone, Trenbolone, Boldenone, 1-testosterone, Oxabolone and Nandrolone on or shortly prior to 10 July 2013.

In light of the fact that the Athlete used prohibited substances on two separate occasions, the Panel deems that the maximum sanction, based on aggravating circumstances, is not merited in this case. As such, the four-year period of ineligibility imposed in the Appealed Decision is set aside and replaced with a period of ineligibility of 3 years. Finally the Panel upholds the disqualification period imposed in the Appealed Decision of 2 years, 5 months and 15 days.

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

1.) The Statement of Appeal filed by Ms. Ekaterina Galitskaia with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) on 22 February 2019 is partly upheld.

2.) The decision of the Sole Arbitrator in CAS 2018/O/5712 IAAF v. RUSAF & Ekaterina Galitskaia is set aside.

3.) Ms. Ekaterina Galitskaia is suspended for a period of three (3) years, starting from 1 February 2019.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Ms. Ekaterina Galitskaia from 15 July 2012 until 31 December 2014 (inclusive) shall remain disqualified, with all of the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points, prizes and appearance money.

5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be calculated and communicated to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the parties in equal shares.

6.) The parties shall each bear their own legal and other costs incurred in connection with these proceedings.

7.) All further requests for relief are dismissed.

show original document » details »

CAS 2019_A_6166 Svetlana Shkolina vs IAAF

6 Apr 2021

CAS 2019/A/6166 Svetlana Shkolina v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)

Related case:

CAS 2018_O_5667 IAAF vs RusAF & Svetlana Shkolina
February 1, 2019

Doping (desoxymethyltestosterone, methasterone)
Admissibility of the appeal in case the national association is not named as the respondent
Means of evidence
Influence of a doping plan or scheme on establishing ADRVs in individual cases
Assessment of circumstancial evidence
Distinction between liability and sanction with regard to the state of knowledge of the athlete
Doping plan or scheme as aggravating circumstance in the assessment of the period of ineligibility
Disqualification of results

7. When applying the wide discretion it retains in the disqualification of results, a CAS panel must be guided by the principles of fairness and proportionality.

the Moscow Laboratory operated, for the protection of doped Russian athletes, within a state-dictated failsafe system, described in the First IP Report as the disappearing positive methodology (DPM) and
the Ministry of Sport of the Russian Federation directed, controlled, and oversaw the manipulation of athletes' analytical results or sample swapping, with the active participation and assistance of the Russian Federal Security Service, the Center of Sports Preparation of National Teams of Russia, and both Moscow and Sochi Laboratories.

Ms. Svetlana Shkolina is a Russian Athlete competing in the High Jump Athletics event at the London 2012 Olympic Games and the Moscow 2013 IAAF World Championships.

In First Instance (CAS 2018/O/5667) the CAS Sole Arbitrator was comfortably satisfied that the Athlete was guilty of having used Prohibited Substances and decided on 1 February 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in February 2019 the Athlete appealed the First Instance Decision (CAS 2018/O/5667) with the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division. The Athlete requested to annul the Appealed Decision and to declare no period of ineligibility on her or, in te alternative, to reduce her period of ineligibility.

The Athlete disputed three findings of the Sole Arbitrator in the Appealed Decision:

that the Athlete is guilty of committing ADRVs;
sanctioning the Athlete to a period of ineligibility of four years as from 1 February 2019; and
disqualifying the Athlete's results from 16 July 2012 to 28 July 2015.

The IAAF holds that Prof. McLaren uncovered and described a doping scheme of unprecedented proportions that pervaded and implicated the Russian sporting and governmental authorities. Further the IAAF contended that it didn't seek to prove the charges against the Athlete on the basis of the McLaren Reports alone. The charges are based primarily on the Evidence Disclosure Package (EDP), which underpin the McLaren Reports, including the Washout Schedules.

After rejecting IAAF's challenge in relation to the nomination of RUSAF as a respondent, the Panel is satisfied, without any doubt, that the present appeal is admissible.

Considering the filed evidence in this case the majority of the Panel is comfortably satisfied that:

the Athlete used Desoxymethyltestosterone (DMT) on or shortly prior to 16 July 2012; and
the Athlete used Methasterone on or shortly prior to 28 June 2013.

In light of the fact that the Athlete used prohibited substances on two occasions, the Panel deems that the maximum sanction based on aggravating circumstances is not merited in this case. As such, the four-year period of ineligibility imposed in the Appealed Decision is set aside and replaced with a period of ineligibility of 2 years and 9 months. Also the Panel reduced the disqualification period imposed in the Appealed Decision to a period of 2 years, 5 months and 16 days.

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

1.) The Statement of Appeal filed by Ms. Svetlana Shkolina with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) on 22 February 2019 is partially upheld.

2.) The decision of the Sole Arbitrator in CAS 2018/O/5667 IAAF v. RUSAF & Svetlana Shkolina is set aside.

3.) Ms. Svetlana Shkolina is suspended for a period of two (2) years and nine (9) months, starting from 1 February 2019.

4.) All results earned by Ms. Svetlana Shkolina from 16 July 2012 to 31 December 2014 (inclusive) (two (2) years, five (5) months and 16 days are disqualified), with all of the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points, prizes and appearance money.

5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be calculated and communicated to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the parties in equal shares.

6.) The parties shall each bear their own legal and other costs incurred in connection with these proceedings.

7.) All further requests for relief are dismissed.

show original document » details »

CAS 2019_A_6165 Yuliya Kondakova vs IAAF

6 Apr 2021

CAS 2019/A/6165 Yuliya Kondakova v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)

Related case:

CAS 2018_O_5713 IAAF vs RusAF & Yuliya Kondakova
February 1, 2019

Athletics (hurdles)
Doping (oral turinabol, methasterone)
Admissibility of the appeal in case the national association is not named as the respondent
Means of evidence
Influence of a doping plan or scheme on establishing ADRVs in individual cases
Assessment of circumstancial evidence
Distinction between liability and sanction with regard to the state of knowledge of the athlete
Doping plan or scheme as aggravating circumstance in the assessment of the period of ineligibility
Disqualification of results

7. When applying the wide discretion it retains in the disqualification of results, a CAS panel must be guided by the principles of fairness and proportionality.

the Moscow Laboratory operated, for the protection of doped Russian athletes, within a state-dictated failsafe system, described in the First IP Report as the disappearing positive methodology (DPM) and
the Ministry of Sport of the Russian Federation directed, controlled, and oversaw the manipulation of athletes' analytical results or sample swapping, with the active participation and assistance of the Russian Federal Security Service, the Center of Sports Preparation of National Teams of Russia, and both Moscow and Sochi Laboratories.

Within the context of the Second IP Report, the IP identified a significant number of Russian athletes who were involved in, or benefitted from, the doping schemes and practices that he uncovered. The IP made publicly available on the IP Evidence Disclosure Package (EDP) website the evidence of the involvement of the Identified Athletes. According to the IP and the IAAF (World Athletics), the evidence on the EDP was retrieved from the hard-drive of Dr Rodchenkov and, after the metadata of all the documents was examined, the documents were determined to have been made contemporaneously to the events.

Ms. Yuliya Kondakova is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women’s hurdle race athletics event at the London 2012 Olympic Games and the Moscow 2013 IAAF World Championships.

In First Instance (CAS 2018/O/5713) the CAS Sole Arbitrator was comfortably satisfied that the Athlete was guilty of having used Prohibited Substances and decided on 1 February 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in February 2019 the Athlete appealed the First Instance Decision (CAS 2018/O/5713) with the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division. The Athlete requested to annul the Appealed Decision and to declare no period of ineligibility on her or, in te alternative, to reduce her period of ineligibility.

The Athlete disputed three findings of the Sole Arbitrator in the Appealed Decision:

that the Athlete is guilty of committing ADRVs;
sanctioning the Athlete to a period of ineligibility of four years as from 1 February 2019; and
disqualifying the Athlete's results from 17 July 2012 to 16 July 2016.

After rejecting IAAF's challenge in relation to the nomination of RUSAF as a respondent, the Panel is satisfied, without any doubt, that the present appeal is admissible.

Considering the filed evidence in this case the Panel is comfortably satisfied that:

the Athlete had used oral-turinabol (DHCMT) on or shortly prior to 17 July 2012; and
the Athlete had used methasterone on or shortly prior to 10 July 2013.

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

1.) The Statement of Appeal filed by Ms. Yuliya Kondakova against the International Association of Athletics Federations with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 22 February 2019 is partially upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the Sole Arbitrator in CAS 2018/O/5713 IAAF v. RUSAF & Yuliya Kondakova is set aside.

3.) Ms. Yuliya Kondakova is suspended from competition for a period of two (2) years and nine (9) months, starting as from 1 February 2019.

4.) All results obtained by Ms. Yuliya Kondakova as from 17 July 2012 until 31 December 2014 (inclusive) (two (2) years, five (5) months and 15 days) are withdrawn, with all of the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points, prizes and appearance money.

5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be calculated and communicated to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the parties in equal shares.

6.) The parties shall each bear their own legal and other costs incurred in connection with these proceedings.

7.) All further requests for relief are dismissed.

show original document » details »

CAS 2019_A_6161 Lyukman Adams vs IAAF

6 Apr 2021

CAS 2019/A/6161 Lyukman Adams v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)

Related cases:

CAS 2016_A_4703 Lyukman Adams [et al.] [67 Russian Athletes] vs IAAF
October 14, 2016
CAS 2016_O_4684 Russian Olympic Committee, Lyukman Adams [et al.] [68 Russian Athletes] vs IAAF
October 10, 2016
CAS 2018_O_5671 IAAF vs RusAF & Lyukman Adams
January 31, 2019

Athletics (triple jump)
Doping (dehydroepiandrosterone, desoxymethyltestosterone, nandrolone, trenbolone, oxandrolone, methenolone, ostarine)
Admissibility of the appeal in case the national association is not named as the respondent
Means of evidence
Influence of a doping plan or scheme on establishing ADRVs in individual cases
Email evidence
Assessment of circumstancial evidence
Distinction between liability and sanction with regard to the state of knowledge of the athlete
Doping plan or scheme as aggravating circumstance in the assessment of the period of ineligibility
Disqualification of results

2. The IAAF Competition Rules do not specify that evidence must have been created or obtained specifically for the purpose of proving anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs). They state that the party with the burden of proving an ADRV – may resort to “any reliable means”. The use of the word “any” makes clear that there is no restriction on the type or nature of evidence that may be adduced. However, findings of fact can only be reached on the basis of evidence that is reliable.

4. The presence of a Domain Keys Identified Mail (DKIM) signature on an email makes it “quite highly probable” that the email in question was actually sent on the day and at the time indicated, and that the body of those emails has not been subsequently manipulated or modified (whether knowingly or unknowingly).

5. In a case where there are various non-analytical evidentiary elements, not only each element individually, but also the global weight of the evidence as a whole should be considered. It is in the nature of circumstantial evidence that single items of evidence may each be capable of an innocent explanation but, taken together, establish guilt to the ‘comfortable satisfaction’ mandated from a tribunal before it can inculpate a sportsperson of a disciplinary offence.

6. Liability under the IAAF Competition Rules is a rule of strict liability. An ADRV is established notwithstanding any intent, fault, negligence or knowledge on the part of the athlete. By contrast to the issue of liability, the state of knowledge of the athlete is relevant to the question of sanction.

7. In the circumstances, where it cannot be shown that an athlete was aware of the existence of a wider doping plan or scheme at the time the prohibited substances were used, the mere existence of such plan or scheme does not, of itself, amount to an aggravating circumstance in the assessment of the period of ineligibility. This flows from the language of the relevant rule which states that the aggravating circumstance exists when the athlete committed the ADRV “as part” of that scheme.

8. When applying the wide discretion it retains in the disqualification of results, a CAS panel must be guided by the principles of fairness and proportionality.

the Moscow Laboratory operated, for the protection of doped Russian athletes, within a state-dictated failsafe system, described in the First IP Report as the disappearing positive methodology (DPM) and
the Ministry of Sport of the Russian Federation directed, controlled, and oversaw the manipulation of athletes' analytical results or sample swapping, with the active participation and assistance of the Russian Federal Security Service, the Center of Sports Preparation of National Teams of Russia, and both Moscow and Sochi Laboratories.

Within the context of the Second IP Report, the IP identified a significant number of Russian athletes who were involved in, or benefitted from, the doping schemes and practices that he uncovered. The IP made publicly available on the IP Evidence Disclosure Package (EDP) website the evidence of the involvement of the Identified Athletes. According to the IP and the IAAF (World Athletics), the evidence on the EDP was retrieved from the hard-drive of Dr Rodchenkov and, after the metadata of all the documents was examined, the documents were determined to have been made contemporaneously to the events.

Mr Lyukman Adams is a Russian Athlete competing in the Triple Jump Athletics event at the London 2012 Olympic Games, the Moscow 2013 IAAF World Championships and the Sopot 2014 IAAF Indoor World Championships.

In First Instance (CAS 2018/O/5671) the CAS Sole Arbitrator was comfortably satisfied that the Athlete was guilty of having used Prohibited Substances and decided on 31 January 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in February 2019 the Athlete appealed the First Instance Decision (CAS 2018/O/5671) with the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division. The Athlete requested to annul the Appealed Decision and to declare no period of ineligibility on him or, in te alternative, to reduce his period of ineligibility.

The Athlete disputed three findings of the Sole Arbitrator in the Appealed Decision:

that the Athlete is guilty of committing ADRVs;
sanctioning the Athlete to a period of ineligibility of four years as from 31 January 2019; and
disqualifying the Athlete's results from 16 July 2012 to 14 September 2014.

After rejecting IAAF's challenge in relation to the nomination of RUSAF as a respondent, the Panel is satisfied, without any doubt, that the present appeal is admissible.

Considering the filed evidence in this case the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Athlete had used seven prohibited substances on at least three occasions, on or shortly prior to 16 July 2012, 6 July 2013 and 26 February 2014.

In light of the fact that the Athlete used prohibited substances on at least three occasions over the course of 19 months, the Panel deems that the maximum sanction is merited. As such, the four-year period of ineligibility imposed in the Appealed Decision will remain. Also the Panel uphold the disqualification period imposed in the Appealed Decision.

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

1.) The Statement of Appeal filed by Mr. Lyukman Adams against the International Association of Athletics Federations with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 21 February 2019 is dismissed.

2.) The decision rendered by the Sole Arbitrator in CAS 2018/O/5671 IAAF v. Russian Athletics Federation (RUSAF) & Lyukman Adams is upheld.

3.) The costs of the arbitration, to be calculated and communicated to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be paid in full by Mr. Lyukman Adams.

4.) Mr. Lyukman Adams all pay a contribution toward the legal and other costs incurred by the International Association of Athletics Federations in connection with the present proceedings in the amount of CHF 2,500 (two thousand five hundred Swiss francs).

5.) All further requests for relief are dismissed.

show original document » details »

CAS 2018_A_6069 André Cardoso vs UCI

10 Feb 2021

CAS 2018/A/6069 André Cardoso v. Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI)

Related case:

UCI-ADT 2018 UCI vs André Cardoso
November 15, 2018

Cycling
Doping (recombinant EPO)
Application of the CAS rules in case of a dispute before the CAS
Dinstinct means of establishing an ADRV
Confirmation by a B sample in “use” cases
Hierarchy of norms
Burden and standard of proof in “use” cases

1. By agreeing to hold a UCI licence, a rider consents to the jurisdiction of the CAS, which necessitates the application of the CAS rules in case of dispute. Within the CAS Code, it is not possible for a person not on the mandatory list of arbitrators to be appointed as an arbitrator in a CAS panel or for CAS rules not to apply.

2. Both the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) and the UCI Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) differentiate, deliberately, between “presence” cases and “use” cases in their provisions. While not infrequently responsible bodies may bring charges of an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) under both provisions, it does not follow that a charge cannot be made good under one, but not the other.

3. There is no indication in the language of Article 2.2 of the UCI ADR that confirmation of the presence of a prohibited substance in the A sample by analysis of the B sample is essential in a charge of “use”. In addition, the comment to Article 2.2 (i) indicates that such a charge may be established by ‘any reliable means’ and (ii) expressly states that “Use may be established based upon the reliable analytical data from the analysis of an A Sample” (without confirmation from an analysis of a B Sample) or from the analysis of a B Sample alone where the Anti-Doping Organization provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sample”. The provision in which the parenthesis appears is clear both in its intent and in its effect. Where the analysis of the A sample provides reliable analytical data to establish the use, there is no need for confirmation by a B sample assuming that the lack of confirmation is sufficiently explained by the Anti Doping Organization.

4. When creating new rules and regulations, the relevant organs are bound by the limits imposed on them by higher ranking norms, in particular the association’s statutes. This follows from the principle of legality. According to this principle, regulations of a lower level may complement and concretize higher ranking provisions, but not amend nor contradict or change them. The WADC is a regulation of a higher ranking than the International Standard for Laboratories; accordingly it is not possible to allow any provision of the latter to trump a provision of the former.

5. Where only a “use” case can be advanced, the anti-doping authority has to prove both that: (a) the A sample positive result is reliable; and (b) there is a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the B sample and (c) on both issues to the standard of “comfortable satisfaction”.

In June 2017 the International Cycling Union (UCI) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Portuguese Rider André Cardoso after his A-sample tested positive for the prohibited substance rhEPO. However the Rider’s B-sample did not confirm the test result of the A-sample, nor the analysis of his blood sample provided on the same day as the urine sample on 18 June 2017.

Nevertheless in first instance the Sole Arbitrator was comfortably satisfied by the assessment of the evidence at hand that the conditions established by Article 2.2 of the UCI ADR (and the comment thereto) which allow a Use Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) to be established based upon (a) reliable analytical data from the analysis of an A-sample alone (without confirmation from an analysis of a B-sample) and (b) where the prosecuting authority provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of onfirmation in the other sample, are satisfied in this matter.

Moreover, the Sole Arbitrator in first instance deemed that the Rider failed to substantiate that the presence of rhEPO in his A-sample resulted from an accidental swap of samples or a congenital / ethanol-induced disorder or a microbial activity. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Rider had committed an ADRV under Article 2.2 of the UCI ADR. Consequently the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal decided on 15 november 2018 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, including disqualification of his results, a fine and payment of costs.

Hereafter in December 2018 the Athlete appealed the UCI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to acquit him of any anti-doping rule violation.

Further the Athlete raised procedural claims regarding the CAS legal aid system and process. He claimed damages and raised also substantive claims regarding the Appealed Decision.

The Athlete’s position was that an ADRV on the basis of the analysis of urine is exclusively governed by Article 2.1 of the UCI ADR, which concerns the presence of a Prohibited Substance in an athlete's sample and that, on the facts of the case, the conditions set forth in Article.2.1 to conclude to an ADRV are not satisfied. The Athlete also denied that the requirements of Article 2.2 UCI ADR (even if applicable, quod non) are met.

The UCI's contended that the UCI ADR expressly provides for an ADRV for use, which is based solely on the analytical data of the analysis of the A-sample governed by Article 2.2 of the UCI ADR, and that, on the facts of the case, Article 2.2 is satisfied.

Following assessment the Panel rejects the Athlete's argument regarding the overall fairness of the CAS proceeding and CAS rules. The Panel finds that it has jurisdiction and that the appeal is admissible.

Considering the expert evidence in this case generally the Majority of the Panel finds the UCI's experts more persuasive than those of the Athlete, who appeared to be sceptical about the generally accepted methodology used to identify exogenous EPO which is a matter beyond the scope of the Panel's deliberations.

Overall, the Panel deems that the Athlete's experts did not seriously challenge the presence of rhEPO but rather attempted to provide explanations for the Adverse Analytical Finding, none of which convinced the Panel.

The Panel concludes that the UCI has established the existence of an ADRV under Article 2.2 of the UCI ADR based on the reliable analytical data from the A sample of the Athlete and the UCI experts' evidence to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel.

In light of this conclusion, the Panel does not need to turn either, whether as a matter of jurisdiction or of the merits, to the question of the damages sought by the Athlete, which has become moot.

The Panel finds that the Athlete’s sanction could not be reduced on the basis of "No Fault or Negligence" or "No Significant Fault or Negligence," which was in any event not argued by him.

Finally the Panel holds that the fine ordered in the Appealed Decision failed to take into consideration the financial situation of the Athlete, resulting from his provisional suspension and accordingly reduces it by 50%.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sports decides on 10 February 2021 that:

1.) The Panel has jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed by Mr. André Cardoso on 14 December 2019.

2.) The appeal filed by Mr. André Cardoso against the decision rendered by the UCI AntiDoping Tribunal on 15 November 2018 is partially granted.

3.) The fine imposed on Mr. André Cardoso in the decision rendered by the UCI AntiDoping Tribunal on 15 November 2018 is reduced to EUR 26,000; the decision rendered by the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal on 15 November 2018 is confirmed in all other respects.

4.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Comi Office fee of CHF 1000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Mr. André Cardoso, which is retained by the CAS.

5.) Each Party will bear their own costs incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

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

show original document » details »

«««11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20»»»