CAS 2022/ADD/43 (OG) International Olympic Committee (IOC) & Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS) v. Hossein Saveh Shemshaki, partial award

Related case:

CAS 2022_ADD_43 FIS vs Hossein Saveh Shemshaki - Final Award
January 5, 2023

---

• Skiing (alpine skiing)
• Doping (dehydrochlormethyltestosterone)
• Proof of the anti-doping rule violation

---

Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1.2 of the IOC Anti-doping Regulations is notably established by the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its metabolites in an athlete’s A-Sample when the athlete’s B-Sample analysis confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance found in the A-Sample.

---

On 9 February 2022 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Iranian Athlete Hossein Saveh Shemshaki after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the CAS Anti-Doping Division Olympic Games Beijing 2022 (CAS ADD).

The Athlete accepted the test results and denied the intentional use of the substance. He requested to dismiss the case and to declare him eligible to participate into Beijing 2022 Olympic Games.

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

Therefore on 15 February 2022 the Sole Arbitrator issues the following decision:

1.) Mr Hossein Saveh Shemshaki is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXIV Olympiad Beijing 2022.

2.) Mr Hossein Saveh Shemshaki is declared ineligible to compete in all competitions in which he has not yet participated at the Olympic Games Beijing 2022.

3.) Mr Hossein Saveh Shemshaki is excluded from the Olympic Games Beijing 2022 and his accreditation for the Olympic Games Beijing is withdrawn.

4.) Mr Hossein Saveh Shemshaki is ordered to leave the Olympic Village within the next 24 hours from the notification of the present Partial Arbitral Award.

5.) With the issuance of this Partial Arbitral Award, the IOC’s participation in this proceeding is hereby terminated.

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

In June 2021 the International Testing Agency (ITA) published a report on Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) following a series of allegations of misconduct by the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF). The report provided an overview of the findings of the investigation into approximately 146 unresolved cases over the 2009-2019 period.

The report notably uncovered mishandling and impropriety on the part of certain IWF officials in relation to its anti-doping program. As a consequence of these discoveries, the ITA had – among other follow-up actions – asserted ADRVs against former IWF President Tamas Ajan, IWF Vice-President Nicolae Vlad, and Hassan Akkus, President of the European Weightlifting Confederation.

---

On 23 June 2021 the ITA, on behalf of the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF), reported anti-doping rule violations against Mr Tamás Aján for Tampering and Complicity regarding:

• the anti-doping rule violations committed by the Athlete Roxana Cocos;
• the anti-doping rule violations committed by several Azerbaijani weightlifters; and
• unsanctioned anti-doping rule violations committed by IWF athletes prior to the year 2014.

Hereafter the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure.

The IWF contended that in the light of Mr Aján’s status and high official position held within the IWF and involvement in the IWF’s anti-doping matters and given the particularly deceptive and obstructing conduct displayed by Mr Aján over a decade, the appropriate sanction in the present case shall be a lifetime period of Ineligibility.

Mr Tamás Ajan denied the violations and asserted that CAS ADD lacks juridiction and statute of limitations. Further he disputed the legality and admissibility on the filed evidence.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence and issues raised by the Parties. Preliminary the Sole Arbitrator deems that:

• the present case against Tamás Aján is not time-bared;
• the evidence in this case is lawfully collected and can be used in this procedure.

Ultimately the Sole Arbitrator determines that Mr Tamás Aján had tampered with the Doping Control Process and was complicit in the anti-doping rule violations committed by:

• the Athlete Roxana Cocos;
• the Azerbaijani weightlifters; and
• IWF athletes prior to the year 2014.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 16 June 2022 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by the International Testing Agency on 21 December 2021, acting on delegation from the International Weightlifting Federation, against Mr Tamás Aján is upheld.

2.) Mr Tamás Aján is found to have committed violations of Articles 2.5 and 2.8 of the 2009 International Weightlifting Anti-Doping Rules, Articles 2.5 and 2.8 of the 2012 International Weightlifting Anti-Doping Rules and Articles 2.5 and 2.9 of the 2015 International Weightlifting Anti-Doping Rules.

3.) A lifetime Ineligibility is imposed on Mr Tamas Aján starting on the date of this Award.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

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

In June 2021 the International Testing Agency (ITA) published a report on Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) following a series of allegations of misconduct by the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF). The report provided an overview of the findings of the investigation into approximately 146 unresolved cases over the 2009-2019 period.

The report notably uncovered mishandling and impropriety on the part of certain IWF officials in relation to its anti-doping program. As a consequence of these discoveries, the ITA had – among other follow-up actions – asserted ADRVs against former IWF President Tamas Ajan, IWF Vice-President Nicolae Vlad, and Hassan Akkus, President of the European Weightlifting Confederation.

---

On 21 June 2021 the ITA, on behalf of the IWF, reported an anti-doping rule violation against Mr Hassan Akkus for Tampering or Attempted Tampering. Hereafter the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure.

The IWF's central allegation is that Mr Akkus, in conspiracy with the IWF President Mr Tamas Aján and legal counsel Ms Monika Ungar, falsely backdated a letter dated 5 November 2012 in order to seek to validate and justify the transfer of results management for 26 Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs) tested and reported after that date in respect of the 21 athletes from the IWF to TWF and to ensure lesser sanctions than might have been for the Athletes and no sanctions at all against the TWF itself; and many years later also adduced false internal metadata properties in an attempt to authenticate that backdated letter.

Mr Akkus denied the applicability of the IWF ADR and the jurisdiction of the CAS ADD, and without prejudice thereto disputed that he backdated the latter dated 5 November 2012 or that it affected the sanctioning of the 21 athletes or that he acted by tampering or in any other way against the IWF ADR (if applicable, which he denied) especially since the testing was conducted, and/or then the President and the legal counsel of the IWF agreed that the results management including sanctioning should be conducted, by or on behalf of the TWF.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the following issues raised by the Parties:

• (1) Do the 2012 and 2021 IWF ADR apply to Mr Akkus?
• (2) Depending on whether the 2021 IWF ADR apply, is there jurisdiction in the CAS ADD?
• (3) If the 2012 and 2021 IWF ADR apply and there is jurisdiction in the CAS ADD, does it lack necessary protections for guaranteeing independence?
• (4) If Mr Akkus committed a violation of the 2012 IWF ADR as alleged in January 2013, is the charge in June 2021 time-barred by reason of the expiry of 8 years or is that period validly extended “retrospectively” to 10 years under subsequent IWF ADR?
• (5) Did Mr Akkus backdate or knowingly use a backdated letter purportedly dated 5 November 2012 in January 2013 in order to tamper with the results management process (for the 21 athletes who were subject to AAFs, for whom the RM including sanctioning was transferred to the TWF) contrary to the 2012 ADR Art 2.5?
• (6) Did Mr Akkus, as a separate later violation, knowingly backdate or use backdated electronic metadata for that letter in September 2021 in order to tamper with the results management process, contrary to the 2021 IWF ADR Art 2.5?

Ultimately the Sole Arbitrator determines that Mr Akkus betrayed the trust of the IWF and the TWF and their members by subverting the anti-doping results management process in order to limit and/or reduce the available sanctions for the AAFs concerned.

He did so in conspiracy with other senior officers of the IWF, falsely producing the backdated 5 November 2012 letter to conceal the later “switch” from the IWF to the TWF and then submitting the false metadata fraudulently to influence proceedings.

In view of the evidence the Sole Arbitrator concludes that Mr Akkus indeed had tampered with any part of doping control. Furthermore he deems that there are plainly aggravating circumstance of the worst kind in the present case for the imposition of a more severe sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 3 January 2023 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed on behalf of the Claimant the International Weightlifting Federation is partially upheld.

2.) The Respondent Hasan Akkus is found to have committed an ADRV by Tampering or Attempted Tampering in contrary to Article 2.5 of the IWF ADR.

3.) The Respondent is sanctioned with a period of Ineligibility of four (4) years starting on the date on which this CAS ADD award enters into force.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

6.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2021/ADD/37 International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Ekaterina Katina

• Weightlifting
• Doping (DHCMT)
• Evidence of the Anti-Doping Rule Violation
• Aggravating circumstances warranting an increase of the period of ineligibility
• Disqualification of result and fairness exception

---

1. To establish an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) under Article 2.2. of the 2012 IWF Anti-Doping Policy (ADP), the IWF may base itself on any reliable means of evidence. This comprises a statement from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) including evidence such as among other the national Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) data secured by WADA Intelligence & Investigations Department (WADA I&I). Moreover, the uncontested detection of a prohibited substance in an athlete’s sample establishes the use of a prohibited substance.

2. Pursuant to Article 10.2. of the 2012 IWF ADP, the standard period of ineligibility for the use of a prohibited substance is two years unless as provided by Article 10.6 of the 2012 IWF ADP, there are aggravating circumstances warranting an increase of the ineligibility period up to four years. The fact for an athlete to test positive for a substance which appears on the prohibited list under class S1 “Anabolic Agents”, to commit multiple ADRVs over the course of several years and to be part of a national anti-detection scheme are aggravating circumstances.

3. Pursuant to the applicable IWF ADP, the disqualification of results is the main rule and the “fairness exception” is only an exception. However, results may remain valid if fairness so requires in the circumstances of each case. Among the factors assessed in the application of the fairness test are the athlete’s degree of fault, the affected sporting results, significant consequences of disqualification of results, Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP), specific issues, additional ineligibility period in the second instance, delays in results management, the overall length of the disqualification and longer periods of disqualification specifically associated with re-testing.

---

In 2016, Professor Richard McLaren issued two reports about systemic doping in Russia. These reports identified a significant number of Russian athletes who were involved in, or benefitted from, the doping schemes and practices that he uncovered.

Hereafter in January 2019 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) recovered the internal database of the Moscow Laboratory (LIMS). Following investigation of allegations of organized doping practices, and in particular of the LIMS, WADA provided international federations with investigation reports on the athletes implicated in these organized doping practices.

As a result in April 2021 the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ekaterina Katina for the use of the prohibited substance Metenolone in June and October 2012 and in December 2014.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered while the Athlete failed to respond. Thereupon in October 2021 the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence in this case and concludes that:

• the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation;
• there are aggravating circumstances in this case;
• there is no fairness exception regarding disqualification of results; and
• the period of disqualification shall be from 22 June 2012 until 1 December 2018.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 June 2022 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by the International Weightlifting Federation on 21 October 2021 is upheld.

2.) Ekaterina Katina is found to have committed anti-doping rule violations under Article 2.2 and Article 2.2.1 of the 2012 IWF ADP.

3.) Ekaterina Katina is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four years starting on the date on which the CAS award enters into force. The period of ineligibility served during the period of provisional suspension imposed on Ms Ekaterina Katina from 14 April 2021 through the date of the present Award shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Ekaterina Katina from and including 22 June 2012 until 1 December 2018 are disqualified, with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes).

(…)

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

CAS 2021/ADD/32 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Askhat Dilmukhamedov

• Wrestling
• Doping (methasterone, oxymetholone)
• Jurisdiction of the CAS ADD
• Applicable law
• Establishment of the presence of a prohibited substance in the athlete’s sample

---

1. Pursuant to Article A2 and Article 8.2 of the CAS ADD Arbitration Rules, the CAS ADD is the first-instance authority that has jurisdiction to conduct proceedings and issue decisions when an alleged Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) has been filed with it. The CAS ADD Arbitration Rules provide, inter alia, that if any of the parties has been duly called and fails to appear at the hearing, the CAS ADD panel may nevertheless proceed with the hearing and deliver an award.

2. Pursuant to Article 8.1 of the CAS ADD Arbitration Rules, the CAS ADD is required to conduct proceedings and to issue decisions as per the CAS ADD Arbitration Rules.

3. Sufficient proof of an ADRV under Article 2.1.2 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXXII Olympiad Tokyo 2020 (ADR), is established by the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites in the athlete’s A-Sample when the athlete’s B-Sample analysis confirms the presence of the prohibited substance found in the A-Sample or when the athlete waives his right to request the opening and the analysis of the B-sample and confirm that he would not challenge the commission of the ADRV.

---

In July 2021 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kazakh wrestler Askhat Dilmukhamedov after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Methasterone and Oxandrolone.

Following notification the Athlete admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing and signed a written Acceptance of Consequences Agreement.

Hereafter in August 2021 the Athlete's case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure. Thereupon the Athlete failed to respond and a Decision was rendered based on the written submissions of the Parties.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Further the Sole Arbitrator determines that the Athlete had admitted the violations, waived his right for a hearing and signed the Acceptance of Consequences.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 22 December 2022 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed on 26 August 2021 by the International Olympic Committee is upheld.

2.) Mr. Askhat Dilmukhamedov is found to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation pursuant to Article 2.1 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXXII Olympiad Tokyo 2020.

3.) All individual results obtained by Mr. Askhat Dilmukhamedov on the occasion of the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020 shall be disqualified, with the resulting forfeiture of any and all medals, diplomas, points or prizes.

4.) United World Wrestling is requested to consider any further action within its own jurisdiction and pursuant to its own Rules including determining any period of ineligibility.

5.) (…).

6.) (…).

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

CAS 2021/ADD/31 International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Ahmed Al-Hussein, Salwan Jasim Alaifuri & Safaa Rashid Al-Jumaili

• Weightlifting
• Doping (higenamine)
• Consolidation
• Establishment of the presence of a prohibited substance
• Relevance of the level of the substance detected
• Presumptive period of ineligibility for the non-intentional presence of a specified substance
• Athlete’s duty of care
• No fault
• No significant fault or negligence, assessment of the athletes’ individual fault under the rules

---

1. On the basis of Article 14.6 of the CAS ADD Rules, it is appropriate, both legally and practically, to consolidate the procedures if (i) the parties are in agreement upon the consolidation of the procedures on one side and in silence on the other; and (ii) having regard to the case put forward by the athletes, the circumstances of each Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) involve significant common issues of fact and law.

2. The evidence i.e. the positive tests, establishes to the required standard of comfortable satisfaction that the athletes committed a violation of Article 2.1 of the IWF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) because the substance detected in the samples provided by the athletes is higenamine which was at the time when the samples were taken a prohibited substance under S3 Beta-Agonist of the Prohibited List 2020 and the testing procedures and results reported have not been challenged by the athletes.

3. There is no level of the substance detected in the athlete’s sample beneath which an AAF cannot be reported. Any detected level amounts to a violation.

4. Where it is accepted that the conduct of the athletes was not intentional as provided by Article 10.2.3 IWF ADR, the presumptive period of ineligibility for a violation of Article 2.1 IWF ADR involving a specified substance such as higenamine as a first violation is two years under Article 10.2.2. The potential application of any defence to eliminate or reduce this period of ineligibility involves considering the fault of the athlete in the circumstances of the violation.

5. The IWF ADR, like all anti-doping rules which implement the World Anti-Doping Code, impose a personal duty of care on athletes to avoid committing violations by ingesting prohibited substances. Athletes who compete at international level are generally expected to show a high degree of care in complying with their anti-doping obligations; they are expected to be aware of the rules and the care which must be taken to avoid committing doping violations. The degree of fault of an athlete in relation to a breach of the rules has to be considered in the context of this expected standard of care.

6. The defence of no-fault provides for the elimination of the period of ineligibility in exceptional circumstances. This defence can only apply where an athlete can establish that he could not have known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost caution that he had used a prohibited substance or violated an anti-doping rule.

7. To reduce the period of ineligibility from two years for a violation under Article 2.1, an athlete has first to establish that his fault or negligence in connection with the violation is not “significant”. Determining fault involves considering the degree of risk that should have been perceived by the athlete in the particular circumstances in which the violation was committed and the level of care that should have been exercised in relation to the perceived level of risk. The personal characteristics of the athlete and any disability are relevant to the consideration of fault because they may explain why the athlete has not met the expected standard of behaviour in the circumstances. Such characteristics may lessen the degree of fault present in a breach of the rules. What matters is the conduct of the athlete and what he did to avoid taking the supplement with the prohibited substance in it. Despite the awareness of the anti-doping regime and their general obligations under it, the lack of education and access to information about supplements should be taken into account.

---

In April 2020 the International Testing Agency, on behalf of the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF), reported anti-doping rule violations against the Iraqi weightlifters Ahmed Al-Hussein, Salwan Jasim Alaifuri & Safaa Rashid Al-Jumaili.

ITA reported that the presence of the prohibited substance Higenamine had been established in the A and B samples of these Athletes provided on 3 and 4 February 2020 and on 28 February 2020.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athletes filed statements in their defence. The Athletes did not accept the proposed sanctions and their consolidated cases were referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure.

The Athletes denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. They explained that they had used a new recommended supplement drink Impact Igniter while they were unaware that it contained Higenamine because they don't know English.

In view of the evidence the ITA accepted that the violations were not intentional and that the supplement drink was the source of the prohibited substance. The ITA requested to impose the following sanctions on the Athletes:

• 20 months on the Athlete Ahmed Al-Hussein for his first anti-doping rule violation;
• 40 months on the Athletes Safaa Rashid Al-Jumaili for his second anti-doping rule violation;
• 40 months on the Athlete Salwan Jasim Alaifuri for his second anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that they committed the anti-doping rule violations.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed the circumstances and the Athletes' conduct in these cases and rules that their violations were not intentional.

Furthermore the Sole Arbitrator considers that:

• the Athletes did not read or write English, nor Arbabic in one case;
• they lack a developed understanding about the significant risk with supplements sold over the counter at stores;
• they lack the kind of education and access to information about supplements available in some jurisdictions;
• the proposed sanctions are appropriate and properly reflect the Athletes' failures in this matter.
• there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athletes.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 15 March 2022 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by the International Weightlifting Federation on 19 August 2021 against Mr. Ahmed Al-Hussein, Mr. Salwan Jasim Abbood Alaifuri and Mr. Safaa Rashid Al-Jumaili is upheld.

2.) Mr. Ahmed Al-Hussein, Mr. Salwan Jasim Abbood Alaifuri and Mr. Safaa Rashid Al-Jumaili are each found to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation of Article 2.1 of the IWF Anti-Doping Policy.

3.) Mr. Ahmed Al-Hussein is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of twenty (20) months. The period of ineligibility shall start from 28 February 2020 which is the date of collection of Mr. Ahmed Al-Hussein’s sample.

4.) Mr. Salwan Jasim Abbood Alaifuri is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of forty (40) months. The period of ineligibility shall start from 4 February 2020 which is the date of collection of Mr. Salwan Jasim Abbood Alaifuri’s sample.

5.) Mr. Safaa Rashid Al-Jumaili is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of forty (40) months. The period of ineligibility shall start from 3 February 2020 which is the date of collection of Mr. Safaa Rashid Al-Jumaili’s sample.

6.) All competitive results obtained by Mr. Ahmed Al-Hussein at the Western Asia Championship in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of any medals, points, and prizes) are disqualified.

7.) All competitive results obtained by Mr. Salwan Jasim Abbood Alaifuri and Mr. Safaa Rashid Al-Jumaili at the 5th International Fajr Cup in Rasht, Iran, with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of any medals, points, and prizes) are disqualified.

8.) All competitive results obtained by Mr. Ahmed Al-Hussein, Mr. Salwan Jasim Abbood Alaifuri and Mr. Safaa Rashid Al-Jumaili from the date of sample collection until the date of their provisional suspension are disqualified with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes).

9.) (…).

10. (…).

11. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2021/ADD/25 United World Wrestling (UWW) v. Angus Patrick Arthur

• Wrestling
• Doping (dehydrochloromethyltestosterone (DHCMT))
• Delay of notification of ADRV and athlete’s defence rights
• Responsibility to clearly designate respondent(s)

---

1. Amongst others in light of the long limitation period provided by the WADA Code between the date of an alleged anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) and an action being commenced, delayed notification of an ADRV does not hinder an athlete’s defence rights. Also, a delay in the performance of e.g. sample analysis caused by unforeseeable circumstances (e.g. closure of laboratory due to pandemic as well as other measures taken to address the pandemic) may constitute an excusable delay.

2. Under Article A13 of the CAS ADD Rules, a claimant is responsible to clearly designate “the name and full address of the Respondent(s)” in the Request for Arbitration. Such provision is in line with Article 221 (1) of the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure which requires a claimant to specify the parties to the proceedings in its Request for Arbitration or Statement of Claim. A CAS panel may not impose any sanctions or similar on an entity that has not been duly designated as party to the proceedings.

---

In June 2020 the International Testing Agency (ITA), on behalf of United World Wrestling (UWF), reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Jamaican wrestler Angus Patrick Arthur after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure. A Decision was rendered based on the written submissions of the Parties.

The Athlete denied taking any, been supplied or advised to take any performing enhancing substances. He asserted that none of the nutritional substances he used at the time of the sample collection contained banned substances.

Further the Athlete complained that the passage of time between the date of sample collection (8 March 2020) and the reporting of the AAF (18 June 2020) prevented him from conducting his own investigation into the cause of the AAF.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

The Arbitrator determines that the Athlete failed to present evidence about his attempts to investigate possible sources of contamination of his nutritional substances or other reasons he would have tested positive. As a result the Athlete failed to establish the source of the prohibited substance, nor that the violation was not intentional.

Although the Covid-19 pandemic caused a delay in the testing of the sample the Arbitrator finds that this delay was not substantial. Delays in the proceedings were deemed to be attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 25 November 2021 that:

1.) The request for arbitration filed by United World Wrestling on 16 July 2021 against Angus Patrick Arthur is partially upheld.

2.) Angus Patrick Arthur committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with the United World Wrestling Anti-Doping Rules.

3.) Angus Patrick Arthur is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years.

4.) The period of ineligibility shall commence on 18 June 2020, which is the start date of the provisional suspension imposed on Angus Patrick Arthur.

5.) All competitive results obtained by Angus Patrick Arthur from the date of sample collection (8 March 2020) until 18 June 2020 are disqualified with all resulting consequences. The Athlete is ordered to return his gold medal and, if applicable, forfeit any other medals, points and prizes.

(…)

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

CAS 2021/ADD/23 World Triathlon v. Elena Danilova

• Triathlon
• Doping (trimetazidine)
• Definition of Use under World Triathlon rules
• Standard of proof to characterize an ADRV for Use
• “Reliable means” of evidence
• Beginning and duration of the period of ineligibility and fairness exception

---

1. In accordance with article 2.2.2 of the World Triathlon Anti-Doping Rules (WTADR), the mere fact an athlete used a prohibited substance or prohibited method is per se sufficient.

2. World Triathlon has the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether World Triathlon has established an ADRV to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. The gravity of the particular alleged wrongdoing is relevant to the application of the comfortable satisfaction standard in any given case .The standard of proof itself is not a variable one. The standard remains constant, but inherent within that immutable standard is a requirement that the more serious the allegation, the more cogent the supporting evidence must be in order for the allegation to be found proven.

3. In accordance with article 3.2 WTADR, unlike an ADRV for “presence”, the commission of an ADRV for Use may be proven by any number of means, so long as they are “reliable”. The term “any reliable means” within the meaning of Article 3.2 WTADR (which mirrors Article 3.2 of the WADC) is not supposed to be limited. Article 2.2. of the WADC provides inter alia that Use “may be established based upon reliable analytical data”.

4. The purpose of the retroactive effect of the disqualification of competitive results, is tied to the integrity of sporting competition with a view to rectifying the record books for the sport and turning the dial back as it were as if the cheating had not occurred. It should be taken into account that, in certain exceptional circumstances, the strict application of the disqualification rule can produce an unjust result. In particular, this may be the case when the potential disqualification period covers a very long term. CAS panels have frequently applied the fairness exception and let results remain partly in force when the potential disqualification period extends over many years and there is no evidence that the athlete has committed ADRVs over the whole period from the ADRV to the commencement of the provisional suspension or the ineligibility period. To find out, whether a sanction is excessive, CAS panels must review the type and scope of the proved rule-violation, the individual circumstances of the case, and the overall effect of the sanction on the offender. CAS panels have a broad discretion when making that assessment.

---

In 2016, Professor Richard McLaren issued two reports about systemic doping in Russia. These reports identified a significant number of Russian athletes who were involved in, or benefitted from, the doping schemes and practices that he uncovered.

Hereafter in January 2019 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) recovered the internal database of the Moscow Laboratory (LIMS). Following investigation of allegations of organized doping practices, and in particular of the LIMS, WADA provided international federations with investigation reports on the athletes implicated in these organized doping practices.

As a result in May 2020 World Triathlon (WT) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Elena Danilova for the use of the prohibited substance Trimetazidine in June 2014, August 2014 and in June 2015.

Thereupon in June 2021 the Athlete's case was referred to the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) for a Sole Arbitrator first instance procedure.

The Athlete denied the violations and disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by WADA, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov. Further she provided a number of possible explanations as to the findings of Trimetazidine in her samples.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the following issues:

• Did the Moscow Laboratory conduct its sample analysis in accordance with the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL)?
• Is the data within the 2015 LIMS Database reliable evidence with regard to the Athlete?
• Was the Athlete part of the Protection Scheme as promulgated by the Moscow Laboratory and RUSADA?
• Was there Trimetazidine in the Athlete’s Samples?
• If the 2015 LIMS Database is reliable with regard to the Athlete, has an ADRV for Use been established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator?

The Athlete has consistently denied Use of Trimetazidine and/or involvement in the Disappearing positive methodology (DPM) or of the Russian Protection Scheme. The Sole Arbitrator deems that she has provided no credible account for the Trimetazidine that was found to be in each of her Samples.

Furthermore the Athlete raised a series of possible alternative sources for the evidence of Trimetazidine in her Samples such as her medical use of Meldonium and the unreliability of the 2015 LIMS Database from which the digital evidence of the Trimetazidine arises.

Following consideration the Sole Arbitrator determines that the Athlete provided only suggestions and unsubstantiated claims without corresponding evidence that could demonstrate that the Use of Trimetazidine by her was not intentional. Consequently the Athlete is subject to a 4 year period of ineligibility.

Finally the Sole Arbitrator finds that fairness and proportionality requires that the Athlete's results are only disqualified over a period of time of 4 years, i.e. the same duration as the period of inelgibility, starting from the date of Sampe 3.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 17 January 2022 that:

1.) Ms Elena Danilova is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with Article 2.2 of the 2015 World Triathlon ADR Rules between 2014 and June 2015 for the Use of the Prohibited Substance trimetazidine.

2.) Ms Elena Danilova is sanctioned with a 4-year period of ineligibility commencing on the date of this Award.

3.) The period of ineligibility shall commence from 26 May 2021 which is the date when the provisional suspension imposed on Ms Elena Danilova started to run.

4.) All competitive results obtained by Ms Elena Danilova from 6 June 2015 to 5 June 2019 with all resulting consequences (including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes) are disqualified.

5.) (…).

6.) (…).

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