CAS 2020_A_6763 Trinidad and Tobago Olympic Committee (TTOC) v. World Athletics

In August 2019 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) for World Athletics reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ms Michelle-Lee Ahye from Trinidad and Tobago for having 3 Missed Tests within a 12 month period: in June 2018, February 2019 and in April 2019. 

In First Instance before the Disciplinary Tribunal the Athlete accepted that the First and Second Missed Tests amounted to breaches of World Athletics Rules. As to the Third Missed Test the Athlete stated that she was at home on 19 April 2019 but had not heard the doorbell or the knocking on the door or the telephone.

Contrary to the Athlete's statement the Doping Control Officer (DCO) reported that during the 60-minute time slot he knocked on her door 36 times and rang the bell 12 times while he also telephoned her twice.

Although the Athlete offered a number of reasons, the Tribunal concluded that she failed to demonstrate that she didn’t acted negligently for her failure to be available for testing on 19 April 2019. Consequently the Disciplinary Tribunal decided on 7 January 2020 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of Third Missed Test, i.e. 19 April 2019. 

Hereafter in February 2020 the Trinidad and Tobago Olympic Committee (TTOC) appealed the Decision of 7 January 2020 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Sole Arbitrator rendered a decision based on the written submissions of the Parties. 

The TTOC on behalf of the Athlete did not dispute the First Missed Test but did address the Second and Third Missed Tests. The TTOC argued that the Athlete was not to blame for the Second Missed Test then it follows that the Second Missed test should not be taken into account as a violation, with the result that no anti-doping rule violation has been committed, or that no fault or negligence to be attributed to the Athlete regarding to the Second Missed Test. 

As to the Third Missed Test the TTOC asserted that in First Instance the Tribunal erred in law when it found that the World Athletics did discharge its burden of proof at the requisite standard in relation to the actions of the DCO in question. The TTOC claimed that the DCO did not do all that was reasonable necessary to locate the Athlete and that he failed to act in accordance with the applicable Guidelines. 

The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete has committed three Missed Tests within a 12-month period (commencing 23 June 2018). Having taken into account the nature and circumstances of the Three Missed Tests, and the evidence on each of them proffered by the Athlete, the Sole Arbitrator finds that the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal was correct in applying a 2 year period of ineligibility from the date of the Third Missed Test (being 19 April 2019).

Further he finds that there is no reason to grant a reduction of the period of ineligibility. In the Sole Arbitrator's view, there is nothing about the degree of fault on the part of the Athlete that commends itself to a reduction of sanction. 

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 February 2021 that:

1. The appeal filed by the Trinidad and Tobago Olympic Committee against World Athletics with the Court of Arbitration for Sport on 10 February 2020 is dismissed in its entirety.
2. The decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal dated 7 January 2020 is confirmed.
3. The Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (onethousand Swiss Francs) paid by the Trinidad and Tobago Olympic Committee, which is retainedby the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
4. The Trinidad and Tobago Olympic Committee shall make a contribution of CHF 3000 (threethousand Swiss francs) to the legal costs and other expenses incurred by World Athletics in connection with these proceedings.
5. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2019/ADD/5 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Endri Karina,

• Weightlifting
• Doping (dehydrochlormethyltestosterone)
• Jurisdiction of the CAS Anti-Doping Division
• Proof of an anti-doping rule violation
• Sanction

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. Sufficient proof of an anti-doping violation under Article 2.1.2 of World Anti-Doping Code 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.

3. Under Article 7.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules, 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, diplomas, points and/or prizes.

Mr Endri Karina is an Albanian Athlete competing in the Men’s 94 kg Weightlifting 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 August 2019 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IOC, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2012 sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol).

Hereafter in December 2019 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) requested for Arbitration with the Anti-Doping Division (ADD) of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as first-instance authority. The Sole Arbitrator renders a decision without a hearing based on the Parties' written submissions.

In his submission the Athlete did not accept the test result, denied the use of the prohibited substance and he could not explain how the substance entered his system.

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 deems that there is sufficient proof that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that he failed to offer another explantion for the presence of the prohibited substance in his sample.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 28 January 2020 that:

1. The request for arbitration filed by the International Olympic Committee on 10 December 2019 against Mr. Endri Karina is upheld.
2. Mr. Endri Karina 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 Mr. Endri Karina at the XXX Olympiad, London 2012 are disqualified with all resulting consequences including, if applicable, forfeiture of any medal, diploma, points and prizes.
4. The award is pronounced without costs, except for the ADD Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by the International Olympic Committee, which is retained by the ADD.
5. (…).
6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2019/ADD/4 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Supatchanin Khamhaeng

• Weightlifting
• Doping (etiocholanolone)
• Jurisdiction of the CAS Anti-Doping Division
• Applicable law under the CAS ADD Rules

1. According to Article A2 paragraph 1 of the 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.

2. Under Article A20 of the ADD Rules, CAS ADD panels shall decide a dispute in accordance primarily with the World Anti-Doping Code and with the applicable Anti-Doping Rules or with the laws of a particular jurisdiction chosen by agreement of the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, according to Swiss law.

Ms Supatchanin Khamhaeng is a Thai Athlete competing in the Girls +63 kg Weightlifting event at the Buenos Aires 2018 Yourth Olympic Games.

In June 2019 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IOC, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Etiocholanolone. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

Hereafter in August 2019 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) requested for Arbitration with the Anti-Doping Division (ADD) of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as first-instance authority. The Sole Arbitrator renders a decision without a hearing based on the Parties' written submissions.

The Athlete signed an ITA Form in which she admitted the violation, waived her right for a hearing, accepted the test result and the sanction proposed by the IOC.

The Thai Amateur Wrestling Association (TAWA) submitted test results for prohibited substances of a number of Weightlifting Athletes competing in the 2017-2018 season and an investigation report into how the prohibited substance entered the Athlete's system.

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

The Sole Arbitrator deems that there is sufficient proof that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. The absence of any explantion from the Athlete strengthens the interference of intentional us of doping substances.

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

1. The request for arbitration filed by the International Olympic Committee on 29 August 2019 against Supatchanin Kamhaeng is upheld.
2. Supatchanin Kamhaeng committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with the International Olympic Committee’s Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the 2018 Youth Olympics.
3. The results obtained by Supatchanin Kamhaeng at the 2018 Youth Olympics are disqualified. She is ordered to return her gold medal and, if applicable, forfeit any diplomas, points and prizes.
4. (…).
5. (…).
6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2019/ADD/3 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Stanislau Tsivonchyk

• Athletics (pole vault)
• Doping (dehydrochlormethyltestosterone)
• Jurisdiction of the CAS Anti-Doping Division
• Applicable law under the Arbitration Rules of the ADD

1. According to Article A2 paragraph 1 of the Arbitration Rules of the ADD (ADD Rules), the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (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. The ADD has jurisdiction to rule as a first-instance authority on behalf of any sports entity which has formally delegated its powers to the ADD to conduct anti-doping proceedings and impose applicable sanctions.

2. Under Article A20 of the ADD Rules, ADD panels shall decide a dispute primarily in accordance with the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) and with the applicable Anti-Doping Rules or with the laws of a particular jurisdiction chosen by agreement of the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, according to Swiss law.

Mr Stanislau Tsivonchyk is a Belarussian Athlete competing in the Men’s Pole Vault 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 December 2018 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 Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

Hereafter in June 2019 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) requested for Arbitration with the Anti-Doping Division (ADD) of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as first-instance authority. The Sole Arbitrator renders a decision without a hearing based on the Parties' written submissions.

The Athlete did not accept the test results and thereafter failed to file a statement in his defence nor responded to any of the communications.

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

The Sole Arbitrator deems that there is sufficient proof that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that he failed to offer another explantion for the presence of the prohibited substances in his samples.

Therefore The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 14 August 2019 that:

1. The request for arbitration filed by the International Olympic Committee on 4 April 2019 against Mr. Stanislau Tsivonchyk is upheld.
2. Mr. Stanislau Tsivonchyk 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 Mr. Stanislau Tsivonchyk at the XXX Olympiad, London 2012 are disqualified with all resulting consequences including, if applicable, forfeiture of any medal, diploma, points and prizes.
4. (…)
5. (…)
6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2019/ADD/2 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Ruslan Nurudinov

• Weightlifting
• Doping (dehydrochlormethyltestosterone)
• Jurisdiction of the CAS Anti-Doping Division (ADD)
• Applicable law under the Arbitration Rules of the ADD (ADD Rules)

1. According to Article A2 paragraph 1 of the ADD Rules, the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (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. The 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.

2. Under Article A20 of the Arbitration Rules of the ADD (ADD Rules), ADD panels shall decide a dispute primarily in accordance with the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) and with the applicable Anti-Doping Rules or with the laws of a particular jurisdiction chosen by agreement of the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, according to Swiss law.

Mr Ruslan Nurudinov is an Uzbek Athlete competing in the Men’s 105 kg Weightlifting 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 December 2018 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the IOC, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his 2012 sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

Hereafter in April 2019 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) requested for Arbitration with the Anti-Doping Division (ADD) of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as first-instance authority. The Sole Arbitrator renders a decision without a hearing based on the Parties' written submissions.

The Athlete signed the Athlete's Rights Form whereby he accepted the test result, declined the opening and testing of his B Sample and declinded the need for the laboratory documentation packages for the Samples.

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

The Sole Arbitrator deems that there is sufficient proof that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that he failed to offer another explantion for the presence of the prohibited substance in his sample.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 May 2019 that:

1. The request for arbitration filed by the International Olympic Committee on 4 April 2019 against Mr. Ruslan Nurudinov is upheld.
2. Mr. Ruslan Nurudinov 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 Mr. Ruslan Nurudinov 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.

CAS 2019/ADD/1 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Mikalai Novikau

• Weightlifting
• Doping (oral turinabol & stanozolol)
• Violation of the anti-doping rule
• Sanction

1. Sufficient proof of an anti-doping violation (ADRV) under article 2.1.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) is established by the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its metabolites belonging to Class S1.1a of the WADA 2019 Prohibited List in the A sample where the analysis of the athlete’s B Sample confirms the presence the Prohibited Substance or its metabolites found in the athlete’s A Sample. The establishment of the ADRV is confirmed by the fact that the metabolites found in the sample are substances specifically used for doping purposes for the purpose of article 2.2 of WADC and the athlete offered no other explanation for their presence in the sample. Thus, the athlete committed an ADRV under both WADC article 2.1 (presence) and article 2.2 (use).

2. Under article 7.1 of the IOC 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.

Mr Mikalai Novikau is a Belarussian Athlete competing in the Men’s 85 kg Weightlifting 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 December 2018 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 substances Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (Turinabol) and Stanozolol. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered.

Hereafter in March 2019 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) requested for Arbitration with the Anti-Doping Division (ADD) of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as first-instance authority. The Sole Arbitrator renders a decision without a hearing based on the Parties' written submissions.

In his submission the Athlete gave a prompt admission, accepted the test results and waived his right for a hearing. Further he denied the use of any prohibited substance and/or method.

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

The Sole Arbitrator deems that there is sufficient proof that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that he failed to offer another explantion for the presence of the prohibited substances in his samples.

Therefore The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 May 2019 that:

1. The request for arbitration filed by the International Olympic Committee on 26 March 2019 against Mr. Mikalai Novikau is upheld.
2. Mr. Mikalai Novikau 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 Mr. Mikalai Novikau 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.

CAS 2019/A/6597 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v Jacob Kibet Chulyo Kendagor

Related case:

IAAF 2019 IAAF vs Jacob Kibet Chulyo Kendagor
October 22, 2019

In July 2019 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Jacob Kibet Chulyo Kendagor for evading and refusing to submit to sample collection after notification during an out-of-competition doping control on 21 November 2018.

However in first instance the AIU Disciplinary Tribunal was not satisfied to the level of comfortable satisfaction that the individual seen by the DCO and BCO was the Athlete and decided on 22 October 2019 to dismiss the charge against the Athlete.

Hereafter in November 2019 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of the IAAF (now known as World Athletics) appealed the decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The AIU requested the Panel to set aside the decision of 22 October 2019 and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

The Athlete disputed to have committed an anti-doping rule violation by relying on affidavits and by submitting that the way in which the investigation by the DCO and BCO was conducted and executed, was flawed and that there was a lack of due diligence on their behalf. The Athlete argued that this case was about mistaken identity and he alleged that he was not notified on 21 November 2018 by the DCO and BCO and that, accordingly, no anti-doping rule violation can be established.

The AIU contended that the charges of the anti-doping rule violations have been sufficiently proven since the DCO and BCO made a valid identification on 21 November 2018 and properly notified the Athlete. Further the AIU asserted that the testimonies of the Athlete and his witnesses were inconsistent and not convincing.

Considering the evidence in this case the Panel finds that the IAAF established to its comfortable satisfaction, beyond a mere balance of probability standard, that the DCO and BCO had interviewed and notified the Athlete on 21 November 2018 and that the Athlete has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation pursuant to Article 2.3 ADR by intentionally misleading the DCO and BCO about his identity and failing or refusing to submit to sample collection.

The Panel holds that the defence raised by the Athlete and the affidavits he relied on were inconsistent and did not corroborate the position of the Athlete. Whereas the Athlete did not attend the hearing, the Panel regards that it did not have the benefit of examining and questioning him further.

Likewise, the inconsistencies and other questions raised in regard to the affidavits could not be addressed by the parties or by the Panel at the hearing, as these witnesses have not been made available by the Athlete notwithstanding the Panel’s request.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 19 January 2021:

1. The appeal filed by the International Association of Athletics Federations on 21 November 2019 against the decision rendered by the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal on 22 October 2019 is upheld.
2. The decision rendered by IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal on 22 October 2019 is set aside.
3. Mr Jacob Kibet Chulyo Kendagor is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four years with effect from the date of this Award but the period between 5 July 2019 and 22 October 2019 shall be credited against the period of ineligibility.
4. All competitive results obtained by Mr Jacob Kibet Chulyo Kendagor between 21 November 2018 and 22 October 2019 shall be disqualified, with all of the consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
5. Mr. Jacob Kibet Chulyo Kendagor shall pay to the IAAF a contribution in the amount of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) toward its legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.
6. All other and further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

On 30 January 2017 the Hearing Panel of the National Anti-Doping Agency Romania (ANAD) decided to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the long-distance runner Sorin Mineran for his second anti-doping rule violation after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Higenamine.

However on 16 March 2018 the ANAD Appeal Panel decided to set aside the first instance decision and to acquit the Athlete. Hereafter in November 2019 WADA appealed the Decision of 16 March 2018 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

WADA requested the Panel to set aside the decision of the ANAD Appeal Panel and to sanction the Athlete for his second anti-doping rule violation. Whereas WADA accepted that the violation was not intentional it requested the Panel to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

WADA contended that Higenamine is a specific substance prohibited at all times under S3 of the 2016 Prohibited List and that a significant number of Athlete's were sanctioned because of the presence of Higenamine in their samples in 2016.

Refering to the Sakho case, invoked by the Athlete in his defence, WADA points out that the Board in that case did not hear any expert explanation of the bases on which doping authorities have determined that such categorization is justified.

The Athlete did not dispute the test result and denied that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation based asserting that:

• his sanction was precluded by res judicata;
• Higenamine was not on the 2016 Prohibited List, because it was not known to be a Beta-2 agonist; and
• not all WADA-accredited laboratories tested for Higenamine in 2016.

The Panel considered the invoked Sakho case and establish that the UEFA-CEDB decision did not actually find that Higenamine is not a prohibited beta-2 agonist. What the Board wrote was instead that there was "significant doubt" in the matter and that is was "not clear" that Higenamine was a beta-2 agonist.

The Panel holds that the evidence does not show a reluctance of laboratories to test for Higenamine, and to the contrary an expansion of their capability to conduct such testing as the use of that substance has proved to be wide spread.

The Panel accepts WADA's contentions and finds that the Athlete's explanation for his anti-doping rule violation is weak. The Panel deems that Higenamine, although not explicitly named, was present on the 2016 Prohibited List. Furthermore CAS jurisprudence has established and confirmed that a list of prohibited substances need not be exhaustive.

Here the Panel regarded that Higenamine was already listed by name as a prohibited substance on the Global Drug Reference Online in 2013. The substance also had been on the agenda of the WADA List Expert Group meetings serveral times listing Higenamine as a beta-2 agonist.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 July 2020 as follows:

1. The appeal filed on 5 November 2019 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the Romanian National Anti-Doping Agency and Sorin Mineran with respect to the decision issued on 11 March 2019 by the Appeal Panel of the Romanian National Anti-Doping Agency is upheld.
2. The decision issued on 11 March 2019 by the Appeal Panel of the Romanian National AntiDoping Agency is set aside.
3. Mr Sorin Mineran is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation and is therefore sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility, commencing on the date of the entry into force of the present award, subject to the proviso that the length of provisional suspension or ineligibility he has already served shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility to be served.
4. The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne 50% by the Romanian National Anti-Doping Agency and 50% by Mr Sorin Mineran.
5. The Romanian National Anti-Doping Agency and Mr Sorin Mineran shall bear their own costs and each is individually ordered to pay to the World Anti-Doping Agency an amount of CHF 2,000 (two thousand Swiss Francs) as a contribution towards WADA's legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
6. All other and further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.