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.

CAS 2021/ADD/14 International Biathlon Union (IBU) v. Ekaterina Glazyrina

• Biathlon
• Doping (metenolone)
• CAS jurisdiction
• CAS ADD jurisdiction pursuant to Article A2 CAS ADD Rules and parties’ due process rights
• Authority and independence of the CAS ADD
• CAS ADD and disciplinary committees of sports governing bodies
• Provisional measures and Provisional Suspension
• Provisional Suspension during investigation
• Request for lifting of Provisional Suspension and athlete conduct
• Standard of proof of comfortable satisfaction
• Proportionality of sanctions

---

1. Jurisdiction, by its definition, is the official power to deliver legal decisions and judgements. A valid arbitration agreement is the basis of arbitration procedures and jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal in general and the legal basis for the jurisdiction and procedure before the CAS. Since the seat of the CAS is in Lausanne, Switzerland, Swiss arbitration law is the lex arbitri for proceedings governed by the CAS and the Swiss Federal Statute on Private International Law (“PILA”) and its Chapter 12 applies. For the arbitration agreement to be valid, pursuant to Article 178 of the PILA, it must be made in writing by telegram, telex, telecopier or any other means of communication which permits it to be evidenced by a text. According to the PILA, the written form of the arbitration agreement is required for the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals with seat in Switzerland.

2. According to Article A2 of the CAS ADD Rules, the CAS ADD has jurisdiction to rule as a first-instance authority on behalf of any sports entity which has formally delegated its powers to the CAS ADD to conduct anti-doping proceedings and impose applicable sanctions. In order for the CAS ADD to be responsible for first-instance adjudication of alleged anti-doping rule violations, including any sanctions, arising under the respective sports entity’s Anti-Doping Rules, a sports entity is required to sign an agreement with the CAS in accordance with Article A2 CAS ADD Rules. The consequence of the agreement between the CAS and the sports entity is the formal delegation of adjudicatory powers for the determination of Anti-Doping Rule violations (ADRVs) and the resulting sanctions to the CAS ADD in accordance with Article A2 CAS ADD Rules. Arguments related to the due process rights which should be safeguarded in an arbitration procedure governed by the CAS ADD Rules concern the quality of the procedure, but do not affect the jurisdiction of the CAS ADD.

3. Given that the CAS ADD is generally authorized by the delegation of a sports entity, it follows that in order to evaluate the constitution and the composition of the CAS ADD and the rights the parties can exercise, the CAS ADD constitution and its composition should be compared to the former first instance authority.

4. While the disciplinary committees of sports governing bodies, acting as first instance authority, are usually part of the institutional framework of the sports governing body, the CAS ADD, acting on authorization by a sports entity, is not. Therefore, by the delegation of powers to the CAS ADD, the ruling body in doping related matters becomes completely institutionally independent from the parties, in particular the sports governing body. Furthermore, both the number of persons sitting on the first instance disciplinary panels of sport’s governing bodies as well as the number of CAS ADD arbitrators are typically limited, and there is a closed number of persons. Generally, the disciplinary committees of sports governing bodies consist of members who are not appointed by the parties. Similarily, the persons who are able to sit on the respective appointed panels are typically not appointed by the parties. For those reasons, the disciplinary committees of sports governing bodies are usually not considered arbitral tribunals but integral part of the sport’s governing body. Accordingly, when delegating authority to the CAS ADD to rule as the first instance authority, and thereby allowing the parties the possibility to choose arbitrators in the first instance case, the parties’ rights, compared to the former situation, when such right was not granted, is typically broadened. Furthermore, the parties can appoint their arbitrator twice, first from the CAS ADD List from 24 proposed persons and once again, in the event of an appeal against the CAS ADD decision, from more than 400 persons from the CAS arbitrators List.

5. Any request for provisional measures needs to meet three relevant criteria: (i) the party seeking such relief would suffer irreparable harm if the relief was not granted, (ii) that party has a likelihood of success on the merits, and (iii) the interests of that party outweigh those of the other party. All three requirements (irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits, and balance of interests) are cumulative and the standard of proof to be met is the balance of probabilities. The mere fact that a professional athlete is prevented from competing in sports events is not enough to justify a stay of a Provisional Suspension imposed on the athlete on the basis of irreparable harm. Likewise, any alleged possible financial losses do not constitute irreparable harm, since such losses may be compensated at any time.

6. A provisional suspension during the investigation and the adjudication procedure is appropriate to protect the interests of the other competitors. This is especially true in cases where the athlete is suspected of having committed further ADRVs against the background of other violations for which he has already served a sanction.

7. The procedural conduct of an athlete, who first contests the provisional suspension imposed on her almost 8 months after already serving the provisional suspension period and in the context of a submission for which the athlete had requested – without addressing the issue of her ongoing provisional suspension – an extension of the deadline by 80 days, does not support the athlete’s argument that the provisional suspension imposed on her is unfair.

8. The standard of comfortable satisfaction is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt, and must take into account all circumstances of the case. Those circumstances include the paramount importance of fighting corruption of any kind in sport and also considering the nature and restricted powers of the investigation authorities of the governing bodies of sport as compared to national formal interrogation authorities. In applying this standard, a CAS panel is expressly required to bear in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. Put differently, the comfortable satisfaction standard is a kind of sliding scale, based on the allegations at stake: the more serious the allegation and its consequences, the higher certainty (level of proof) the panel would require to be “comfortably satisfied”.

9. Sanctions in general must comply with the proportionality requirement of being appropriate, necessary and demonstrate a reasonable balance between the objective pursued and the means used to achieve it, but it also has to be kept in mind that harsher sanctions are warranted in case of serious infringements, structural non-compliance with the various obligations and in case of recidivism. Furthermore, disciplinary measures serve different functions: the punitive function serves to punish the offender; the preventive function prevents re-offending and restorative function helps to undo the harm inflicted by the offence.

---

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 September 2020 the International Biathlon Union  (IBU) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Ekaterina Glazyrina for the use of the prohibited substances Enobosarm (ostarine), Metenolone and Oxandrolone in March and September 2013.

Previously on 24 April 2018 the IBU Anti-Doping Hearing Panel had already imposed a sanction of 2 years on the Athlete based on the findings of the McLaren Reports for "use" of a prohibited substance.

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

The IBU contended that it had already been established that the Athlete was a protected Athlete, i.e. an athlete who benefitted from the Disappearing Positive Methodology, which means that her samples were among those whose entries in the LIMS had been deleted.

The IBU asserted that the LIMS 2015 Data revealed that the Athlete's samples, collected in March 2013 and in September 2013, showed the presence of Enobosarm (ostarine), Metenolone and Oxandrolone.

The Athlete denied that she had committed an anti-doping rule violation and argued that CAS ADD lacks jurisdiction, impartiality and independence. Further she disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by WADA, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov.

The Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed the evidence provided by the Parties and determines that:

• CAS ADD has jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the present matter.
• The Athlete's request for lifting the provisional suspension is dismissed.
• The evidence submitted to the file is reliable and the use of Metenolone has been proven.
• The Athlete has committed the anti-doping rule violation for use of a prohibited substance.
• Both violations shall be considered as one single violation.
• There are aggravating circumstances and proportionality requirements regarding the additional sanction.
• The Athlete had already served a sanction of 2 years and a supplemental sanction of 1 year shall be imposed.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 March 2022 that:

1.) The Request for Arbitration filed by the Biathlon Integrity Union (BIU) on behalf of the International Biathlon Union (IBU) on 12 January 2021 against Ms. Ekaterina Glazyrina is partially upheld.

2.) Mrs. Ekaterina Glazyrina committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation in accordance with Article 2.2 of the IBU ADR 2012.

3.) Ms. Ekaterina Glazyrina is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of one (1) year.

4.) The period of ineligibility shall commence on 23 September 2020, which is the starting date of the provisional suspension imposed on Ms Ekaterina Glazyrina.

5.) All competitive results obtained by Ms. Ekaterina Glazyrina’s between 19 September 2013 and 18 December 2013 shall be disqualified, with all of the consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

6.) (…).

7.) (…).

8.) All other and further prayers or requests for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2021/A/8284 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. World Baseball Softball Confederation (WBSC) & Laura Vigna

• Softball
• Doping (evading, refusing or failing to submit to sample collection)
• Right of a CAS panel to issue a consent award and purpose of it
• Duty of the CAS panel to verify the bona fide of the settlement agreement

---

1. In accordance with Article R56 para. 2, second sentence, of the CAS Code, a CAS panel is expressly allowed to issue an award embodying the terms of the settlement if all parties to the dispute agree. The CAS panel’s endorsement of the settlement agreement and incorporation in an award serves the obvious purpose of rendering it easier for the parties to enforce the settlement agreement.

2. As any settlement “may” be embodied in an award, it is up to the CAS panel to verify the bona fide of the settlement agreement, so that the consent award mechanism is not manipulated by the parties as an instrument of fraud, and to acknowledge that the settlement terms are not contrary to public policy principles or mandatory rules.

---

In April 2021 the International Testing Agency, on behalf of the World Baseball-Softball Confederation (WBSC), reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian Athlete Laura Vigna for her evasion, refusal or failure to submit to sample collection.

In July 2021 ITA and the Athlete reached an Agreement on Consequences. In this settlement the Athlete accepted a sanction of 8 months for the committing the anti-doping rule violation.

Thereupon the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) requested the case file to the ITA in view of a potential appeal to be filed. Hereafter in August 2021 WADA appealed against this Agreement on Consequences with the Cour of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

WADA requested the Panel to amend the Appealed Decision and to impose on the Athlete a period of ineligibility of between 12 and 24 months.

In December 2021 WADA reported to CAS that the Parties had settled the matter. They requested that the adapted Settlement Agreement be embodied in an Arbitral Award rendered by consent of the Parties.

The Parties agree:

• The previous Agreement of July 2021 is set aside.
• The Athlete is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 1 year.
• The sanction starts on the date of the anti-doping rule violation, i.e on 19 November 2020.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 19 April 2022:

1. The terms of paragraph 1 of the Settlement Agreement submitted to the CAS Court Office on 2 December 2021 are hereby ratified by the CAS with the consent of the Parties and embodied in this arbitral Award.

2. The arbitral procedure with reference CAS 2021/A/8284 World Anti-Doping Agency v. World Baseball Softball Confederation (WBSC) & Laura Vigna is terminated and deleted from the CAS roll.

3. (…).

4. (…).

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

CAS 2021/A/8125 Heiki Nabi v. Estonian Center for Integrity in Sports

• Wrestling
• Doping (letrozole)
• Plausibility of meat contamination
• Plausibility of contamination by transfer of sweat and/or saliva from other athlete or from gym equipment
• Obligation to establish the specific source of the prohibited substance
• Balance of probability
• Reduction of the sanction based on the principle of proportionality

---

1. Athletes who have a clean record and do not have uncharacteristically poor competitive results before the violation (and thus avoid the possible inference that they had a motive to cheat) or uncharacteristically good results thereafter (which might be suggested to confirm cheating) will improve their prospects yet further if they can show an invoice from a restaurant indicating they were served meat which could be traced to a wholesale supplier known or suspected by regulatory authorities to feed steroids or other prohibited substances to its livestock.

2. A theory of letrozole contamination by transfer of sweat and/or saliva from other athlete or from gym equipment must be rejected as unlikely (i) without tangible scientific evidence to support this theory, and (ii) given the complexities of letrozole effectively passing through two bodily systems and two skin barriers, and (iii) the athlete’s inability to identify with any kind of certainty the individual who might have transmitted letrozole, and (iv) the fact the no other of the many athletes who train at the same gym and use the same equipment tested positive for letrozole.

3. Establishing the specific source of a prohibited substance is required when an athlete seeks to prove No Fault or Negligence or No Significant Fault or Negligence under the definitions of No Fault or Negligence and No Significant Fault or Negligence in the applicable anti-doping regulations. The “narrowest corridor” through which an athlete who has not been able to conclusively identify the specific source of the prohibited substance may pass to reach a finding of No (Significant) Fault or Negligence only applies to cases involving non-specified substances and only to allow athletes to pass from a four-year period of ineligibility to a two-year period of ineligibility, based on their lack of intention, in the event that in the face of extraordinary circumstances they are unable to establish the source of the adverse analytical finding.

4. The standard of proof of balance of probability requires that the occurrence of a scenario suggested by an athlete must be more likely than its non-occurrence, and not the most likely among competing scenarios.

5. The no fault or negligence and no significant fault or negligence exceptions to otherwise strict liability anti-doping rule are themselves embodiments of the principle of proportionality. Even an ‘uncomfortable feeling’ regarding a sanction mandated in the rules is not sufficient to involve the principle of proportionality where the applicable rules include a sanctioning regime which is proportionate and contains clear and concise mechanism which allows for a reduction of the applicable sanction.

---

In February 2021 the Estonian Center for Integrity in Sports (ESTCIS) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Estonian wrestler after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Letrozole.

Consequently the ESTCIS Disciplinary Board decided on 27 June 2021 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in July 2021 the Athlete appealed the ESTCIS Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to annul or reduce the imposed sanction.

The Panel 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. Undisputed for the Parties is that the Athlete's violation was not intentional.

The Panel assessed and addressed the following issues:

• a.) Has the Athlete established how Letrozole entered his system on a balance of probabilities?
• b.) Can the Athlete successfully rely on Article 10.5 EADR (No Fault or Negligence) or Article 10.6 EADR (No Significant Fault or Negligence) to benefit from a reduction in the mandated two-year period of ineligibility?
• c.) Should the two-year period of ineligibility be reduced based on the principle of proportionality?

Thereupon the Panel determines that none of the alternative theories the Athlete has brought forth are sufficiently scientifically probable to convince the Panel on a preponderance of the evidence that their occurrence is more likely that their non-occurrence. He thus fails to establish to source of Letrozole to the required standard of proof.

The Panel rejects all of the Athlete’s contentions that he need not establish the source of the Prohibited Substance in order to successfully rely upon and benefit from Articles 5 and 6 of the EADR. Because he failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, how Letrozole entered his system, he cannot benefit from a reduction in his period of ineligibility on the basis of having No Fault or No Significant Fault for the ADRV.

The Panel has “an uncomfortable feeling” regarding the applicable period of ineligibility. Notwithstanding the same, relying on the above case law, the Panel stresses that this uncomfortable feeling is not sufficient to involve the principle of proportionality by reducing the sanction that has been ruled appropriate on the basis of facts and evidence before the Panel, and more conclusively on the basis of the applicable rules.

The Panel concludes:

• The finding of Letrozole in the Athlete’s sample is the result of incidental exposure.
• The source of the AAF has not been established on a balance of probabilities.
• None of the possible scenarios provided allow the Athlete to satisfy, on a balance of probabilities, his burden to establish the source of Letrozole detected in his urine sample.
• The Athlete is a credible witness and unfortunate victim of what has been determined to be inadvertent administration of trace amounts of Letrozole from an unknown source.
• He is paying a heavy price for incidental circumstances that may, or may not, have been outside of his control, and should not be branded as a cheater or a doper.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 October 2022 that:

1. The appeal filed by Mr. Heiki Nabi on 21 July 2021 against the decision issued by the Disciplinary Board of the Estonian Center for Integrity in Sports on 27 June 2021 is dismissed.

2. The decision issued by the Disciplinary Board of the Estonian Center for Integrity in Sports on 27 June 2021 is confirmed.

3. (…).

4. (…).

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

Related case:

FEI 2018 FEI vs Paulo Sergio Mateo Santana Filho
April 25, 2019

On 25 April 2019 the FEI Tribunal decided to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Salvadorean Athlete Paulo Sergio Mateo Santana Filho after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Boldenone.

In first instance the Panel ruled that the Athlete failed to establish the source of the Boldenone, nor that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.

Hereafter in May 2019 the Athlete appealed the FEI Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to eliminate or reduce the imposed period of ineligibility.

The Athlete asserted that there were 4 scenario's that could have caused the positive test results:

• (i) the consumption of meat contaminated by Boldenone in Guatemala or El Salvador 19 to 23 days prior to the Sample being collected at the Event;
• (ii) the transdermal contamination by Boldenone while injecting non-FEI registered horses in El Salvador;
• (iii) the contamination of his Sample during the sample collection process that departed from the WADA standards; and
• (iv) the contamination of the Sample by the Athlete touching a contaminated faucet (or another surface) in the bathroom that was used by the Athlete next to the Doping Control Station at the Event.

FEI contended that the Athlete failed to establish, on a balance of probability, how the Boldenone had entered his system. Neither of the submitted explanations provided a plausible scenario, and the FEI therefore deemed it extremely unlikely that the positive finding of Boldenone in the Athlete is a result of any of the provided explanations.

The Panel 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. Further the Panel assessed and addressed the four scenarios of the Athlete's Boldenone contamination. 

The Panel concludes that the Athlete had not provided clear and convincing evidence that prove how Boldenone had entered his system. He also failed to provide an explanation that is plausible, on a balance of probability, and failed to establish a plausible link between the positive finding and either of the four potential contamination sources alleged by the Athlete.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 10 June 2021 that:

1) The appeal filed by Mr. Paulo Sergio Mateo Santana Filho on 16 May 2019 against the decision rendered by the FEI Tribunal dated 25 April 2019 is dismissed.

2) The decision rendered by the FEI Tribunal dated 25 April 2019 is confirmed in its entirety.

3) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by the Appellant, which is retained by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

4) Mr. Paulo Sergio Mateo Santana Filho's request for an order that the Fédération Equestre Intemationale make a contribution towards the costs he has incurred in making the Appeal is dismissed.

5) Mr. Paulo Sergio Mateo Santana Filho is ordered to pay CHF 3,000 (three thousand Swiss francs) as a contribution towards the expenses incurred by the Fédération Equestre Internationale in defending this appeal.

6) All other or further requests or motions for relief are dismissed.

In January 2022 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Swedish tennis player Mikael Ymer for 3 Whereabouts Filing Failures within a 12 month period.

Yet, on 23 June 2022 the ITF Independent Tribunal determined that the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation in respect of his 3rd Whereabouts Failure.

Hereafter in July 2022 the ITF appealed the Decision of 23 June 2022 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The ITF requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 2 years on the Athlete.

The ITF holds that its appeal centres on the Athlete's 3rd Whereabouts Failure and contended that the Doping Control Officer (DCO) on 7 November 2021 attempted to test the player during the 60-minute time slot by visiting the location specified for that timeslot. 

The ITF asserted that the DCO did what was reasonable in the circumstances to locate the Athlete. By contrast the Athlete denied his negligence and claimed that the DCO failed to do what was reasonable under the circumstances to locate the Athlete.

The Athlete stated that the filing task for his Whereabouts was delegated to a third party. He was not aware that on 7 November 2021 his stay in another tournament hotel in Roanne, France, did not correspond with his whereabouts filing for that day.

Following assessment of the evidence the Panel determines that de DCO did all that was required of him to locate the Athlete at the indicated hotel. Further the Panel deems that it is not the duty of the DCO to try to find the Athlete in another location than the Athlete's specified location.

The Panel is not satisfied on a balance of probability that the Athlete's behaviour was not negligent and did not cause or contribute to his failure to be available for testing.

The Panel finds it reasonable to expect that a tennis
player in the IRTP would not have delegated the filings task entirely to a third party, but  that such an Athlete would have verified the whereabouts filing made for that day, and
would thus have realized that his stay at the tournament hotel did not correspond with his whereabouts filing for that day.

Considering the Athlete's degree of fault the majority of the Panel finds that a sanction of 18 months must be imposed on the Athlete. Furthermore the Panel deems that there are no grounds to disqualify the Athlete's results prior to this Decision.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 17 July 2023 that:

1.) The Appeal filed by the International Tennis Federation against Mr Mikael Ymer with respect to the decision of the Independent Tribunal of 23 June 2023 is partially upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the Independent Tribunal on 23 June 2023 is set aside.

3.) Mr Mikael Ymer is found to have committed an anti-doping violation under Article 2.4 of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme.

4.) Mr Mikael Y mer is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 18 ( eighteen) months, starting from the date of notification of this Award.

5.) No results occurring between the time of the third missed test on 7 November 2021 and the date of this award are disqualified.

6.) The present arbitration proceedings shall be free of charge, except for the CAS Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by the International Tennis Federation, which is retained by the CAS.

7.) Each party shall bear its own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.

8.) All other applications and requests for relief are dismissed.

After a positive test for Cannabis in August 2005 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decided to impose a warning and a reprimand on the Australian boxer Anthony Little without a period of ineligibility.

In first instance the Sole Arbitrator determined that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete had demonstrated that the Cannabis was passively inhaled by him in August 2005 prior to the doping test and that he did not actively ingest Cannabis.

Although the Athlete won gold at the Commonwealth Games selection trials in 2005, and he was cleared by the CAS Tribunal, Boxing Australia Inc. decided in February 2006 to exclude the Athlete for the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed with the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division the decision of the BAI Appeal Panel of 21 February 2006, regarding his non-selection for the 2006 Commonwealth Games.

The Athlete asserted that BAI failed to give careful consideration to its undoubted power to amend the Criteria in question and to properly follow and/or implement the Nomination Criteria.

Following assessment of the case the Sole Arbitrator determines that BAI gave consideration to the matters raised by the Athlete and it exercised its discretion not to amend the Criteria in question. Also there is no evidence that BAI acted in an appropriate manner or acted inconsistently with its contractual obligations.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 March 2006:

1.) The Appeal by Anthony Little against the failure of the Respondent to nominate him to the Australian Commonwealth Games Association for selection in the Australian Team to compete in the 2006 Commonwealth Games, is dismissed.

(…).