Used filter(s): 923 items found

  • Remove all filters
  • Legal Source:
    anyall
    • CAS Advisory Opinion Awards
    • CAS Anti-Doping Division Awards
    • CAS Appeal Awards
    • CAS Miscellaneous Awards
    • CAS Ordinary Procedure Awards

CAS 2021_A_8056 Olga Pestova vs RUSADA

23 May 2022

CAS 2021/A/8056 Olga Pestova v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA)

  • Rugby
  • Doping (methylhexaneamine)
  • Conditions for the reduction of the standard sanction on the basis of “No Significant Fault or Negligence”
  • Level of care expected from the athlete for a finding of “No Significant Fault or Negligence”
  • Categories and levels of fault

1. According to the applicable regulations, in order for the standard sanction for a violation involving a specified substance and a non-intentional anti-doping rule violation to be reduced on the basis of “No Significant Fault or Negligence”, the athlete must, on a balance of probabilities, firstly establish how the prohibited substance entered his/her system (the so-called “route of ingestion”). This is the “threshold” condition established by the anti-doping rules to allow “access” to a finding of “No Significant Fault or Negligence”. Secondly, s/he must establish the facts and circumstances that are relevant to his/her fault and, on that basis, why the standard sanction should be reduced. A period of ineligibility can be reduced based on “No Significant Fault or Negligence” only in cases where the circumstances justifying a deviation from the duty of exercising the “utmost caution” are truly exceptional, and not in the vast majority of cases.

2. The “bar” should not be set too high for a finding of “No Significant Fault or Negligence”. In other words, a claim of “No Significant Fault or Negligence” is (by definition) consistent with the existence of some degree of fault and cannot be excluded simply because the athlete left some “stones unturned”. An athlete can always read the label of the product used or make internet searches to ascertain its ingredients, cross-check the ingredients so identified against the Prohibited List or consult with the relevant sporting or anti-doping organizations, consult appropriate experts in anti-doping matters and, eventually, not take the product. However, an athlete cannot reasonably be expected to follow all such steps in every and all circumstances. To find otherwise would render the “No Significant Fault or Negligence” provision in the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) and translated into the applicable regulations meaningless.

3. Until the 2015 version of the WADC, anti-doping rules allowed a distinction between three degrees of fault or negligence. The 2015 version of the WADC significantly differs from the previous scheme for the consideration of the specificities of individual cases. As a result, the time span of 24 months which is still available now covers only two instead of three categories of fault: 1) normal degree of fault: over 12 months and up to 24 months with a standard normal degree leading to an 18-month period of ineligibility; and 2) light degree of fault: 0-12 months with a standard light degree leading to a 6-month period of ineligibility. In order to determine into which category of fault a particular case might fall, it is helpful to consider both “objective” and “subjective” levels of fault. The objective level of fault points to “what standard of care could have been expected from a reasonable person in the athlete’s situation”, while the subjective level looks to “what could have been expected from that particular athlete, in the light of his/her particular capacities”. Therefore, the objective element should be foremost in determining into which of the relevant categories a particular case falls; the subjective element can then be used to move a particular athlete up or down within that category. All in all, however, there might be some overlap within those elements.



In October 2020 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violatin against the rugby player Olga Pestova after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (1,3-dimethylamylamine).

Consequently on 19 May 2021 the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The DADC accepted that the violation was not intentional and considered that at the material time the Athlete suffered from a head injury that effected her physical and psychological condition.

Hereafter in June 2021 the Athlete appealed the DADC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). She requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to eliminate or reduce the imposed sanction.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She explained that she suffered from a head injury a week before the match and the sample collection.

After her injury she did not receive a proper examination and she continued to train while she experienced acute headache, nausea and dizziness. Feeling sick and disoriented she consumed a Melior sport drink purchased in a sport nutrition shop.

She asserted that she did check the ingredients of this drink and only after further research into this product it appeared that this Melior drink was a counterfeit product of Russian origin. She acknowledged that she did not inform the team's managagement about her medical condition because she feared not to be selected for the next match.

The Athlete argued that her cognitive disorder caused by concussion is of particular relevance to assess whether she could adequately evaluate the information and make decisions when she bought and consumed the Melior sport drink.

RUSADA accepted that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that the Melior sport drink was the possible source of the prohibited substance in her sample. Yet it does not accept that the Athlete has demonstrated that her judgement or decision-making capacity was, in any event, impaired by her head injury.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that it is undisputed between the Parties that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and has demonstrated how the substance had entered her system.

Following assessment of the Athlete's conduct impaired by her head injury the Sole Arbitrator deems that there is no justification for a further reduction of the imposed sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 23 May 2022 that:

1. The appeal filed by Ms Olga Pestova with the Court of Arbitration for Sport against the decision issued on 13 May 2021 by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency is dismissed.

2. The decision issued on 13 May 2021 by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency is confirmed.

3. (…).

4. (…).

5. All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2021_A_7840 WADA vs ICF & Aleksandra Dupik

9 Jun 2022

CAS 2021/A/7840 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. International Canoe Federation (ICF) & Aleksandra Dupik

  • Canoeing
  • Doping (furosemide)
  • Use of a prohibited substance
  • Standard of proof
  • Methods of proof
  • Circumstantial evidence
  • Reduction of the period of disqualification in the interests of fairness

1. It is made clear by Article 2.2.1 of the ICF 2009 Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR) that, because it is every athlete’s duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body, it is not necessary to show that any use on the part of an athlete was intentional or knowing, or that an athlete was at fault in some way or that he or she failed to take due care (i.e., was negligent).

2. The standard of proof of comfortable satisfaction is greater than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The more serious the allegation, the more cogent the supporting evidence must be in order for the allegation to be found proven. However, contrary to what is often asserted, the standard itself does not change; it is the required cogency of the evidence that changes on the basis that the more serious the allegations (a) the less likely that the alleged fact or event has occurred and (b) the more serious the consequences. The standard of proof remains to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations.

3. As a general rule, facts relating to anti-doping rule violations (ADRV) may (i.e., it is permissible) be established by “any reliable means”. This rule gives greater leeway to anti-doping organisations to prove violations, so long as they can comfortably satisfy a tribunal that the means of proof is reliable. As a result, it is not even necessary that a violation be proven by a scientific test itself. Instead, a violation may be proved through admissions, testimony of witnesses, or other documentation evidencing a violation. This rule is not a requirement that the evidence adduced be “reliable evidence”. Rather, it is a rule as to the method or manner or form in which the facts that are necessary to sustain an allegation of an ADRV may be established, and the rule provides (in a non-exhaustive list) a number of examples of means of establishing facts which are characterised as “reliable”.

4. In case there is no direct but only circumstantial evidence, the adjudicatory body must assess the evidence separately and together and must have regard to what is sometimes called “the cumulative weight” of the evidence. It is in the nature of circumstantial evidence that single items of evidence may each be capable of an innocent explanation but, taken together, establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion, but the whole taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilt.

5. Article 10.8 of the ICF 2009 ADR provides that all competitive results achieved by the athlete from the date that a positive sample was collected or other ADRV was committed through to the start of the period of ineligibility is to be disqualified with all of the resulting consequences as there set forth – unless fairness requires otherwise. Indeed 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, which is normally the case when the facts leading to the ADRV took place long before the adjudicating proceedings started which usually occurs when they are opened as a result of the re-testing of a sample or of the uncover of a sophisticated doping scheme. In addition, in this type of cases it may be difficult to prove that the athlete at stake used prohibited substances or methods during such a long period of time.



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.

These investigation reports revealed that the prohibited substances Furosemide had been established in the sample of the Athlete Aleksandra Dupik. This sample was provided by the Athlete in April 2014 and thereupon deliberately reported as negative by the Moscow laboratory.

However the ICF concluded that there was insufficient direct evidence that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and decided on 11 March 2021 not to bring forward this case.

Hereafter in March 2021 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the ICF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete from 2 to 4 years.

WADA contended that the evidence in relation to the Athlete's samples clearly showed that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that the decision by the ICF not to move forward with this matter was manifestly wrong.

The Athlete denied that she had committed an anti-doping rule violation and argued that the appeal should be dismissed and the Appealed Decision should be confirmed. Further she disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by WADA, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov.

There was no pleaded challenge to the manner in which the ICF conducted itself in coming to its decision, only that its decision was wrong. The appeal was therefore conducted by the Parties as an inquiry into whether the evidence was sufficient to establish, to the applicable standard of proof, that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and not as to whether the ICF had met its investigation obligations under its anti-doping rules and related international standards.

Following assessment of all evidence provided by the Parties, the Panel concludes as follows:

  • There was a systemic cover-up and manipulation of the doping control process within Russia in the manner described by Prof. McLaren in the McLaren Reports, commonly referred to as the Russian doping scheme.
  • The Moscow Laboratory performed both initial testing procedures and confirmation procedures on the Sample, the results of which showed the presence of the diuretic, Furosemide.
  • Furosemide is a prohibited substance.
  • In furtherance of the Russian doping scheme, and in order to protect the Athlete from the consequences of the positive test result, the Moscow Laboratory recorded the analytical results of the Sample in ADAMS as negative.
  • In relation therefore to the ADRV allegations in this matter, the Panel concludes that, upon taking the evidence as a whole and assessing its cumulative weight, the Panel is comfortably satisfied that, on or about 19 April 2014, the Athlete used a prohibited substance (namely, Furosemide) in violation of Article 2.2(b) of the 2009 ICF ADR.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 9 June 2022 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 1 April 2021 against the International Canoe Federation and Ms Aleksandra Dupik with respect to the decision rendered by the International Canoe Federation on 11 March 2021 is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered on 11 March 2021 by the International Canoe Federation in the matter of Ms Aleksandra Dupik is set aside.

3.) Ms Aleksandra Dupik is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.2 of the International Canoe Federation’s 2009 Anti-Doping Rules.

4.) Ms Aleksandra Dupik is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of two (2) years starting from the date of this Award.

5.) All competitive results achieved by Ms Aleksandra Dupik from 19 April 2014 through to and including 31 December 2016 are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

6.) (…).

7.) (…).

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

CAS 2021_A_7839 WADA vs ICF & Nikolay Lipkin

9 Jun 2022

CAS 2021/A/7839 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. International Canoe Federation (ICF) & Nikolay Lipkin

  • Canoeing (kayak)
  • Doping (Trenbolone/Metenolone/Oxandrolone)
  • Use of a prohibited substance
  • Standard of proof
  • Methods of proof
  • Circumstantial evidence
  • Aggravating circumstances
  • Reduction of the period of disqualification in the interests of fairness

1. It is made clear by Article 2.2.1 of the ICF 2009 Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR) that, because it is every athlete’s duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body, it is not necessary to show that any use on the part of an athlete was intentional or knowing, or that an athlete was at fault in some way or that he or she failed to take due care (i.e., was negligent).

2. The standard of proof of comfortable satisfaction is greater than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The more serious the allegation, the more cogent the supporting evidence must be in order for the allegation to be found proven. However, contrary to what is often asserted, the standard itself does not change; it is the required cogency of the evidence that changes on the basis that the more serious the allegations (a) the less likely that the alleged fact or event has occurred and (b) the more serious the consequences. The standard of proof remains to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations.

3. As a general rule, facts relating to anti-doping rule violations (ADRV) may (i.e., it is permissible) be established by “any reliable means”. This rule gives greater leeway to anti-doping organisations to prove violations, so long as they can comfortably satisfy a tribunal that the means of proof is reliable. As a result, it is not even necessary that a violation be proven by a scientific test itself. Instead, a violation may be proved through admissions, testimony of witnesses, or other documentation evidencing a violation. This rule is not a requirement that the evidence adduced be “reliable evidence”. Rather, it is a rule as to the method or manner or form in which the facts that are necessary to sustain an allegation of an ADRV may be established, and the rule provides (in a non-exhaustive list) a number of examples of means of establishing facts which are characterised as “reliable”.

4. In case there is no direct but only circumstantial evidence, the adjudicatory body must assess the evidence separately and together and must have regard to what is sometimes called “the cumulative weight” of the evidence. It is in the nature of circumstantial evidence that single items of evidence may each be capable of an innocent explanation but, taken together, establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion, but the whole taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilt.

5. There are aggravating circumstances if an athlete participated in a doping plan or scheme to commit anti-doping rule violations and also engaged in deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid the detection of an anti-doping rule violation.

6. Article 10.8 of the ICF 2009 ADR provides that all competitive results achieved by the athlete from the date that a positive sample was collected or other ADRV was committed through to the start of the period of ineligibility is to be disqualified with all of the resulting consequences as there set forth – unless fairness requires otherwise. Indeed 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, which is normally the case when the facts leading to the ADRV took place long before the adjudicating proceedings started which usually occurs when they are opened as a result of the re-testing of a sample or of the uncover of a sophisticated doping scheme. In addition, in this type of cases it may be difficult to prove that the athlete at stake used prohibited substances or methods during such a long period of time.


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.

These investigation reports revealed that the prohibited substances Metenolone, Oxandrolone and Trenbolone had been established in the 2 samples of the Athlete Nikolay Lipkin. These samples were provided by the Athlete in June 2014 and thereupon deliberately reported as negative by the Moscow laboratory.

However the ICF concluded that there was insufficient direct evidence that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and decided on 11 March 2021 not to bring forward this case.

Hereafter in March 2021 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the ICF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete from 2 to 4 years.

WADA contended that the evidence in relation to the Athlete's samples clearly showed that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that the decision by the ICF not to move forward with this matter was manifestly wrong.

There was no pleaded challenge to the manner in which the ICF conducted itself in coming to its decision, only that its decision was wrong. The appeal was therefore conducted by the Parties as an inquiry into whether the evidence was sufficient to establish, to the applicable standard of proof, that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and not as to whether the ICF had met its investigation obligations under its anti-doping rules and related international standards.

Following assessment of all of the evidence provided by the Parties, the Panel concludes as follows:

  • There was a systemic cover-up and manipulation of the doping control process within Russia in the manner described by Prof. McLaren in the McLaren Reports, commonly referred to as the Russian doping scheme.
  • The Moscow Laboratory performed initial testing procedures (ITP) on the Samples, the results of which showed the (presumptive) presence of the anabolic steroids Trenbolone, Metenolone and Oxandrolone.
  • Each of these substances is a prohibited substance.
  • In furtherance of the Russian doping scheme, and in order to protect the Athlete from the consequences of positive test results, the Moscow Laboratory did not go on to conduct the confirmation procedure to confirm the presence and/or concentration and/or origin of these substances but, instead, falsely recorded the analytical results of the Samples in the ADAMS as negative.
  • In relation therefore to the ADRV allegations in this matter, the Panel concludes that, upon taking the evidence as a whole and assessing its cumulative weight, the Panel is comfortably satisfied that, on or about 5 June 2014 and on or about 19 June 2014, the Athlete used prohibited substances (namely, Trenbolone, Oxandrolone and Metenolone) in violation of Article 2.2(b) of the ICF 2009 ADR.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 9 June 2022 that:

1.) The appeal filed by of the World Anti-Doping Agency on 9 June 2021 against the International Canoe Federation and Mr Nikolay Lipkin with respect to the decision rendered on 11 March 2021 by the International Canoe Federation is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered on 11 March 2021 by the International Canoe Federation in the matter of Mr Nikolay Lipkin is set aside.

3.) Mr Nikolay Lipkin is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.2 of the International Canoe Federation’s 2009 Anti-Doping Rules.

4. Mr Nikolay Lipkin is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting from the date of this Award, subject to any period of provisional suspension already served.

5.) All competitive results achieved by Mr Nikolay Lipkin from 5 June 2014 through to and including 31 December 2016 are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

6.) (…).

7.) (…).

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

CAS 2021_A_7838 WADA vs ICF & Alesandr Dyachenko

9 Jun 2022

CAS 2021/A/7838 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. International Canoe Federation (ICF) & Aleksandr Dyachenko


Related case:

CAS OG_2016_19 Natalia Podolskaya & Alexander Dyachenko vs ICF
August 8, 2016


  • Canoeing (kayak)
  • Doping (trenbolone/metenolone)
  • Use of a prohibited substance
  • Standard of proof
  • Methods of proof
  • Circumstantial evidence
  • Aggravating circumstances
  • Reduction of the period of disqualification in the interests of fairness

1. It is made clear by Article 2.2.1 of the ICF 2009 Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR) that, because it is every athlete’s duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body, it is not necessary to show that any use on the part of an athlete was intentional or knowing, or that an athlete was at fault in some way or that he or she failed to take due care (i.e., was negligent).

2. The standard of proof of comfortable satisfaction is greater than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The more serious the allegation, the more cogent the supporting evidence must be in order for the allegation to be found proven. However, contrary to what is often asserted, the standard itself does not change; it is the required cogency of the evidence that changes on the basis that the more serious the allegations (a) the less likely that the alleged fact or event has occurred and (b) the more serious the consequences. The standard of proof remains to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations.

3. As a general rule, facts relating to anti-doping rule violations (ADRV) may (i.e., it is permissible) be established by “any reliable means”. This rule gives greater leeway to anti-doping organisations to prove violations, so long as they can comfortably satisfy a tribunal that the means of proof is reliable. As a result, it is not even necessary that a violation be proven by a scientific test itself. Instead, a violation may be proved through admissions, testimony of witnesses, or other documentation evidencing a violation. This rule is not a requirement that the evidence adduced be “reliable evidence”. Rather, it is a rule as to the method or manner or form in which the facts that are necessary to sustain an allegation of an ADRV may be established, and the rule provides (in a non-exhaustive list) a number of examples of means of establishing facts which are characterised as “reliable”.

4. In case there is no direct but only circumstantial evidence, the adjudicatory body must assess the evidence separately and together and must have regard to what is sometimes called “the cumulative weight” of the evidence. It is in the nature of circumstantial evidence that single items of evidence may each be capable of an innocent explanation but, taken together, establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion, but the whole taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilt.

5. There are aggravating circumstances if an athlete participated in a doping plan or scheme to commit anti-doping rule violations and also engaged in deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid the detection of an anti-doping rule violation.

6. Article 10.8 of the ICF 2009 ADR provides that all competitive results achieved by the athlete from the date that a positive sample was collected or other ADRV was committed through to the start of the period of ineligibility is to be disqualified with all of the resulting consequences as there set forth – unless fairness requires otherwise. Indeed 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, which is normally the case when the facts leading to the ADRV took place long before the adjudicating proceedings started which usually occurs when they are opened as a result of the re-testing of a sample or of the uncover of a sophisticated doping scheme. In addition, in this type of cases it may be difficult to prove that the athlete at stake used prohibited substances or methods during such a long period of time.



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.

These investigation reports revealed that the prohibited substances Metenolone and Trenbolone had been established in the 2 samples of the Athlete Alesandr Dyachenko. These samples were provided by the Athlete in 2014 and thereupon deliberately reported as negative by the Moscow laboratory.

However the ICF concluded that there was insufficient direct evidence that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and decided on 11 March 2021 not to bring forward this case.

Hereafter in March 2021 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the ICF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a period of ineligibility on the Athlete from 2 to 4 years.

WADA contended that the evidence in relation to the Athlete's samples clearly showed that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and that the decision by the ICF not to move forward with this matter was manifestly wrong.

The Athlete denied that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation and argued that the appeal should be dismissed and the Appealed Decision should be confirmed. Further he disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by WADA, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov.

There was no pleaded challenge to the manner in which the ICF conducted itself in coming to its decision, only that its decision was wrong. The appeal was therefore conducted by the Parties as an inquiry into whether the evidence was sufficient to establish, to the applicable standard of proof, that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation and not as to whether the ICF had met its investigation obligations under its anti-doping rules and related international standards.

Following assessment of all of the evidence provided by the Parties, the Panel concludes as follows:

  • There was a systemic cover-up and manipulation of the doping control process within Russia in the manner described by Prof. McLaren in the McLaren Reports, commonly referred to as the Russian doping scheme.
  • The Athlete was a protected athlete within the Russian doping scheme.
  • The Moscow Laboratory performed initial testing procedures on the Samples, the results of which showed the (presumptive) presence of the anabolic steroids Epitrenbolone (a metabolite of Trenbolone) in Sample No.1 and Epitrenbolone and 16a-hydroxy-1-methyl-5a-androst-1-ene-3,17-dione (a metabolite of Metenolone) in Sample No.2.
  • Each of these substances is a prohibited substance.
  • In furtherance of the Russian doping scheme, and in order to protect the Athlete from the consequences of positive test results, the Moscow Laboratory did not go on to conduct the confirmation procedure to confirm the presence and/or concentration and/or origin of these substances but, instead, recorded the analytical results of the Samples in the Anti-Doping Administration & Management System (ADAMS) as negative.
  • In relation therefore to the ADRV allegations in this matter, the Panel concludes that, upon taking the evidence as a whole and assessing its cumulative weight, the Panel is comfortably satisfied that, on or about 5 June 2014 and on or about 3 August 2014, the Athlete used prohibited substances (namely, Trenbolone and Metenolone) in violation of Article 2.2(b) of the ICF 2009 ADR.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 9 June 2022 that:

1.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 1 April 2021 against the International Canoe Federation and Mr Aleksandr Dyachenko with respect to the decision rendered on 11 March 2021 by the International Canoe Federation is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered on 11 March 2021 by the International Canoe Federation in the matter of Mr Aleksandr Dyachenko is set aside.

3.) Mr Aleksandr Dyachenko is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.2 of the International Canoe Federation’s 2009 Anti-Doping Rules.

4.) Mr Aleksandr Dyachenko is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting from the date of this Award, subject to any period of provisional suspension already served by Mr Aleksandr Dyachenko.

5.) All competitive results achieved by Mr Aleksandr Dyachenko from 5 June 2014 through to and including 31 December 2016 are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

6.) (…).

7.) (…).

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

CAS 2021_A_7768 Bauyrzhan Islamkhan vs AFC & Al Ain FC

16 Mar 2022

CAS 2021/A/7768 Bauyrzhan Islamkhan v. Asian Football Confederation (AFC) & Al Ain FC

  • Football
  • Doping (methylhexanamine)
  • Balance of probability standard
  • Lack of cooperation of club and laboratory standards during the COVID-outbreak
  • Wide variety of potentially contaminated products and medical team
  • Disciplinary proceedings against other teammates
  • Evidentiary value and relevance of polygraph tests

1. The balance of probability standard requires the indicted player to prove that his hypothesis is more probable than other explanations, and/or at least 51% likely to have occurred. He must establish that the alleged chain of events is more likely than not to have happened, by submitting actual and/or scientific evidence, not just possible scenarios and mere speculation.

2. The player who faces difficulties in proving “negative facts” can legitimately expect that his former club, which he accuses of supplying him with contaminated products, will cooperate in the investigation and, failing that, can theoretically prevail himself of its adverse attitude during the assessment of the evidence. However, he cannot go so far as to invoke a reallocation of the burden of proof, which would place him in an overly favourable position, nor can he summon the club as a defending party subject to sanctions, in the absence of a legal or regulatory basis in this sense. Moreover, he cannot hide behind the so-called tardiness of the dealing of his sample by the laboratory in charge of the test, when the delay is justified by the sanitary situation related to the COVID-19 outbreak and in line with the special standards adopted for this purpose.

3. The player who merely suspects the many supplements that he consumed through his former’s club medical team, without pointing out a specific product or clarifying the grey areas surrounding various products provided by other stakeholders, fails to demonstrate the source of his antidoping rule violation on the balance of probabilities or at all. He cannot either shift his responsibility to his team doctor or nutritionist, after ingesting all sorts of nutriments without checking their content and labelling, in violation of his obligation to ensure that no prohibited substances enter his body.

4. Allegations according to which former teammates are subject to disciplinary proceedings or have even been sanctioned for doping carry little weight, if they are not supported by clear documentation or the testimony of those players. The lack of
evidence in this respect, as well as the absence of any other witnesses called to the hearing, make any in-depth discussion thereto unnecessary.

5. Polygraph tests are usually considered by courts as inadmissible or mere statements. They may have very limited probative value in specific instances, in particular when supported by other strong evidence or filmed. Their relevance is further limited when they reveal a score which is considered uncertain in relation to crucial questions and/or are based on a series of incomplete questions.


On 23 December 2020 the Disciplinary and Ethics Committee of the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Kazakh football player Bauyrzhan Islamkhan after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (1,3-dimethylamylamine, 1,3 DMAA).

In this matter the AFC accepted that the violation was not intentional although the Athlete could not demonstrate how the prohibited substance had entered his system.

Hereafter in March 2021 the Athlete appealed the AFC 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 sanction.

The Athlete admitted the violation and asserted that there are three possible sources for his violation: the products provided by his national team; his own supplements; and the products provided by his Al Ain FC. In support he even produced a polygraph test to prove his innocence.

The Athlete requested the Panel to hold Al Ain FC liable for his violation and to sanction it because he considered contamination of the Club’s products the most probable scenario. He believed that he could not reasonably have known or suspected, even with the utmost caution, that any of the Club's products could contain a prohibited substance.

The Athlete stated the Club did not cooperate by providing the product samples for months, finally anonymously conducted its own testing, and never confirmed or proved that the samples tested were the right ones; therefore, the Athlete could not adduce the usually expected direct evidence.

The Club Al Ain FC requested the Panel to reject that Athlete's appeal and denied CAS has jurisdiction. The Club asserted that it has no standing to be sued in this matter, nor that it is liable for the Athlete's violation.

The Club argued that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how he prohibited substance had entered his system. Further the Club holds that the testing of the Club's products in the Doha Laboratory was valid while these products did not contain the prohibited substance.

Preliminairy the Panel settled some issues and determines that the Club itself has no standing to be sued. Also the Panel dismissed the admissibility and evidentiary value of the polygraph test provided by the Athlete.

In this case the Panel assessed and addressed the following issues:

  • What is the applicable standard of proof?
  • Has the Player established how the substance entered his system?
  • If so, what is the degree of negligence and fault attributable to the Player?
  • What are the consequences thereof?

The Panel determines that:

  • there is no reason to depart from the usual burden and standard of proof;
  • the Athlete has failed to demonstrate the source of the prohibited substance;
  • there are no grounds to claim a reduction of the period of inelgibility;
  • the Athlete's reliance on his team doctors is generally not sufficient to claim a reduction of the sanction.

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

1.) The CAS has jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed by Mr Bauyrzhan Islamkhan against the decision of the AFC Disciplinary and Ethics Committee of 23 December 2020.

2.) The appeal filed by Mr Bauyrzhan Islamkhan against the decision of the AFC Disciplinary and Ethics Committee of 23 December 2020 is dismissed.

3.) The decision of the AFC Disciplinary and Ethics Committee of 23 December 2020 is confirmed.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

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

CAS 2019_A_6482 Gabriel da Silva Santos vs FINA

14 Feb 2020

CAS 2019/A/6482 Gabriel da Silva Santos v. Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA)


Related case:

FINA 2019 FINA vs Gabriel da Silva Santos
October 7, 2019


  • Aquatics (swimming)
  • Doping (clostebol)
  • CAS panels’ adjudicatory role
  • Basis for the analysis of an athlete’s claim of No Fault or Negligence
  • Limits to athletes’ required endeavours to defeat doping
  • Athletes’ anti-doping-related responsibility for their entourage

1. It is not up to CAS panels to engage in a review, or revision, of the rules applicable to a dispute, supplementing its views for that of the drafters of said regulations.

2. Panels confronted with a claim by an athlete of No Fault or Negligence must evaluate what this athlete knew or suspected and what s/he could reasonably have known or suspected, even with the exercise of utmost caution. In addition, panels must consider the degree of risk that should have been perceived by an athlete and the level of care and investigation exercised by an athlete in relation to what should have been the perceived level of risk as required by the definition of Fault.

3. There are, and must be limits to which the anti-doping rules can extend in terms of imposing obligations on athletes. There are circumstances where it is not reasonable, nor can there have been any way for an athlete to have appreciated any degree of risk of testing positive. It is an unreasonable and impractical expectation to obligate an athlete to endeavor to survey the ailments of family members and the use by family members of various substances when visiting them in their home for a short stay.

4. A brother an athlete does not live with, and to whom the athlete does not assign any responsibility or participation in fulfilling his/her anti-doping obligations, is not a member of the athlete’s entourage for whose actions the athlete bears anti-doping-related responsibility.


On 7 October 2019 the FINA Doping Panel decided to impose a 12 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substance Clostebol.

In first instance the Panel accepted on the balance of probabilities the Athlete’s explanation that cross contamination had caused the positive test result. The Panel deemed that the violation was not intentional and that the Athlete had established No Significant Fault or Negligence with a low degree of fault.

Hereafter in September 2019 the Athlete appealed the FINA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose no sanction or ineligibility period on him or alternatively a more reduced sanction.

FINA requested the Panel to uphold the Appealed Decision and contended that the FINA Anti-Doping Panel already had imposed the lowest possible sanction based on No Significant Fault or Negligence.

The Panel assessed and addressed whether the Athlete bore any fault or negligence, and, if so, he should receive the benefit of the contaminated products rule. If not applicable then what was his level of fault so that a determination of a reduction, if any, in his period of ineligibility could be computed.

The Panel rejects the Athlete's argument that Specified Substances and non-Specified Substances positive tests to be treated identically on fairness grounds. However in view of the circumstances the Panel deems that this case is truly unique and determines unanimously that the Athlete has established No Fault of Negligence.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 14 February 2020 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr Gabriel da Silva Santos against the Fédération Internationale de Natation with respect to the decision rendered by the FINA Doping Panel on 19 July 2019 (rectified on 22 July 2019) is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the FINA Doping Panel on 19 July 2019 (rectified on 22 July 2019) is set aside.

3.) Mr Gabriel da Silva Santos is found to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation but bears no fault or negligence and no period of ineligibility shall be imposed on him.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

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

CAS 2019_A_6210 & 6277 Yang Gao vs OCA

20 Feb 2020

CAS 2019/A/6210 & 6277 Yang Gao v. Olympic Council of Asia (OCA)

  • Athletics (shot put)
  • Doping (betamethasone)
  • Procedural flaws warranting annulation of the challenged decision (de novo hearing)
  • ADRV based on the presence of a prohibited substance in-competition
  • Interpretation of the Prohibited List
  • Entitlement of the athlete to a retroactive TUE

1. From a Swiss perspective, there is no uniform standard of independence with respect to adjudicatory bodies of associations. In particular, the majority of legal literature applies a lesser standard with regard to independence for association tribunals compared to state courts or arbitral tribunals. Furthermore, even if the members of an association tribunal were not sufficiently independent, such a procedural flaw may be healed in a proceeding before the CAS. According to Article R57 para. 1 of the CAS Code, the Panel has the full power to review the facts and the law. In principle, the de novo proceeding before the CAS cures any purported (procedural) violations that occurred in prior proceedings. There may be exceptions to this rule in case of exceptional circumstances. However, in any case, i.e. even if 2 members of the association’s disciplinary body were not sufficiently independent, such violation cannot be qualified as an irreparable breach of the applicable procedural standards. If the appellant has the opportunity to extensively present his/her case before the CAS, where all of his/her fundamental procedural rights are fully respected, any procedural flaw before the association’s disciplinary body fades to the periphery and is herewith cured.

2. It clearly follows from the applicable anti-doping regulations (ADR) that for an anti-doping rule violations (ADRV) based on presence of a Prohibited Substance it is irrelevant when the substance was administered. Instead, it suffices that the Prohibited Substance is still present in the athlete’s system in-competition.

3. Under Section S9 of the Prohibited List all glucocorticoids are prohibited when administered by intramuscular routes. The term “intramuscular” might appear clear and unambiguous at the outset i.e. injections of glucocorticoids into the muscle. Yet, to decide an important question related to the interpretation of the Prohibited List solely based on evidence submitted by one of the parties to the proceedings is not easy. Indeed, there could be a serious issue with regard to the principle of legal certainty in relation to Section S9 of the Prohibited List, should the term “intramuscular” injection be interpreted contrary to the ordinary meaning attached to such technical term by the relevant professional community. The question should be left open if – provided the route of administration was prohibited – the athlete was entitled to a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE).

4. The presence of a Prohibited Substance shall not be considered an ADRV if it is consistent with the provisions of a TUE granted in accordance with the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (ISTUE). Under Article 4.1 ISTUE, 4 conditions are to be met for granting a retroactive TUE, namely (a) the Prohibited Substance is needed to treat an acute or chronic medical condition, (b) the therapeutic Use of the Prohibited Substance is highly unlikely to produce any enhancement of performance, (c) there is no reasonable therapeutic alternative, (d) the necessity for the use of the Prohibited Substance is not a consequence of the prior use of a prohibited substance or method. The administration of Glucocorticoids, a non-threshold substance is not prohibited out-of-competition. Thus, an athlete is permitted to treat an acute medical condition with Glucocorticoids out-of-competition. In addition, retroactive TUEs want to ensure that there is immediate treatment available to an athlete in situations where a prospective TUE cannot be granted in due time and there is a danger that a medical condition turns chronic further damaging the athlete’s health. The purpose of retroactive TUEs is to reasonably balance between the protection of the athlete’s health and the athlete’s responsibilities under the anti-doping program.



On 2 March 2019 the Disciplinary Commission of the Olympic Council of Asia (OCA DC) decided to disqualify the Athlete's results after she tested positive for the prohibited substance Betamethasone. Thereupon on 1 May 2019 the OCA decided  to dismiss the Athlete's application for a retroactive TUE.

Hereafter in March 2019 and in May 2019 the Athlete appealed both OCA decisions with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Parties agreed to consolidate both appeals and procedures.

The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decisions of 2 March 2019 and 5 June 2019 and to deem that she had not committed an anti-doping rule violation. She denied the intentional use of the substance and accepted the test results.

She explained that the substance was used as prescribed medication as valid treatment for her acute medical condition and administered by her doctor out-of-competition. The medication was mentioned on the Doping Control Form and reported by her doctor to the OCA Medical Committee.

Further the Athlete alleged that procedural flaws occurred in the proceeding before the OCA DC due to two members of the Panel were not impartial and independent.

The OCA requested the Panel to dismiss the Athlete's appeal and denied that any procedural flaws had occurred in the proceedings before the OCA DC. The OCA contended that the Athlete used the Betamethasone in-competition and the injection was a prohibited route of administration.

Further the OCA contended that the found concentration in the Athlete's samples is of no relevance. Moreover in accordance with the Rules there are no grounds to grant a retroactive TUE.

The Panel assessed and addressed the following issues:

  • 1.) Should the Decision be annulled for procedural flaws?
  • 2.) Did the Athlete commit an ADRV?
  • 3.) In case the aforementioned question (2) is answered positively, are the criteria for granting a retroactive TUE fulfilled?

The Panel determined that the members of the OCA DC were sufficiently independent whereas any procedural flaw may be healed in a proceedings before the CAS. The Panel finds that the substance was present in the Athlete's system in-competition while it is irrelevant when the substance was administered.

The Panel has serous doubts whether the term intramuscular in Section S9 of the Prohibited List covers the route of administration in question here. In view of the evidence the Panel concludes there was no reasonable therapeutic alternative for the administration of Betamethasone by the Athlete's doctor.

Consequently the Panel deems that the Athlete had not committed an anti-doping rule violation and the Athlete's appeals against both OCA Decisions must be upheld.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 20 February 2020 that:

1.) The appeals filed by Ms Yang Gao on 25 March 2019 and 13 May 2019 are upheld.

2.) The decision of the TUE Sub-Commission of the Olympic Council of Asia dated 1 May 2019 is set aside. Ms Yang Gao is granted a retroactive Therapeutic Use Exemption for the local injection of glucocorticoids administered to her on 24 August 2018. Consequently, the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Olympic Council of Asia dated 2 March 2019 is set aside.

3.) (…).

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

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

CAS 2018_A_5853 FIFA vs TNDA & Damián Marcelo Musto

2 Jul 2019

CAS 2018/A/5853 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Tribunal Nacional Disciplinario Antidopaje (TNDA) & Damián Marcelo Musto


  • Football
  • Dopage (hydrochlorotiazide; furosemide)
  • Material scope of the FIFA Statutes’ arbitration clause related to doping-related decisions
  • FIFA’s right to appeal doping-related decisions directly to the CAS in the context of national-level players
  • Impact of the national anti-doping law on CAS jurisdiction
  • Discretion not to issue a preliminary award on jurisdiction
  • Late transmission of the Laboratory Documentation Package
  • Determination of the applicable period of ineligibility in the context of a negligent ADRV
  • Commencement of the period of ineligibility


1. By virtue of holding a license, a player submits to an arbitration clause by reference and is bound to the FIFA arbitration clause related to appeals by FIFA against doping-related decisions. Doping-related decisions of anti-doping organizations to whom the interested national federations delegated their disciplinary responsibilities and powers in doping matters are covered by the material scope of the arbitration clause, since the list of decisions referred to in Article 58 para. 5 of the FIFA Statutes is not exhaustive (“in particular”).

2. The FIFA ADR, in principle, differentiate in relation to the internal means of recourses between national-level players and international-level players. A decision may be appealed to a national-level appeal body before the appeal to CAS in cases involving national-level players whereas a final decision may be appealed exclusively to CAS in cases involving international-level players. However, in special circumstances, FIFA has a right to appeal doping-related decisions in the context of national-level players directly to the CAS, i.e. where no other party with a right to appeal has challenged the decision (before the national-level appeal body) and, therefore, the decision became legally “final” within the national anti-doping organization’s process.

3. A player may be submitted to two different sets of rules, i.e. the FIFA ADR to which he submitted by entering into a license agreement with the interested national federation and a national law. Both sets of rules are not identical. The mere fact, however, that both sets of rules to which the player is submitted are not identical has no impact on the CAS jurisdiction. On the contrary, it suffices that the arbitration agreement is found in either one of the applicable sets of rules in order to establish the jurisdiction of the CAS. This is all the more true considering that the FIFA ADR make it clear that they want to be applicable to all players irrespective of any concurrent set of rules.

4. According to Article R55 para. 5 of the CAS Code, it is at the discretion of the panel (“may rule”) whether to render a preliminary decision on its jurisdiction or to rule on its jurisdiction in the final award. When applying such discretion the panel – in principle – takes account of the reasoning submitted by the party requesting a preliminary decision, in particular why a preliminary decision is necessary to safeguard its interests and to prevent it from possible harm or why a decision on jurisdiction, for some other reasons, is urgent. Absent any compelling reason and/or urgent necessity for a preliminary decision, a preliminary award on jurisdiction should not be rendered.

5. The fact that a player was only provided with the Laboratory Documentation Package (“LDP”) at a late stage in the proceeding does not affect the case in an irreparable manner. The LDP is – for sure – an important source of information. The documents help to understand whether or not there have been deviations from the applicable International Standards. But the latter is a legal analysis that can be performed also at a later stage, i.e. before the appellate instance. Thus, the fact that the player was only provided with the LDP before CAS does not amount to a breach of a party’s procedural rights.

6. The breadth of sanction for a negligent anti-doping rule violation under Article 22 para. 1 lit. a FIFA ADR is from a reprimand to 24 months ineligibility, depending on the player’s degree of fault. In exercising discretion to determine the appropriate sanction within this range, a difference is made between “normal degree of fault” ranging between 12-24 months and a “light degree of fault” ranging between a reprimand and 12 months. In order to determine into which category of fault a particular case might fall, it is helpful to consider both the objective and the subjective level of fault. The objective element describes what standard of care could have been expected from a reasonable person in the athlete’s situation. The subjective element describes what could have been expected from that particular athlete, in light of his/her personal capacities.

7. If there were delays in the context of the analysis of a player’s sample and, in particular, in the procedure before the anti-doping authority, if these delays were substantial and if they cannot be attributed to the player, there is room to backdate the player’s sanction at the discretion of the deciding body, pursuant to Article 28 para. 1 FIFA ADR. However, one must note that backdating a period of ineligibility in team sports effectively amounts to waiving part of the sanction, since – differently from individual sports – “competitive results achieved during the period of ineligibility” can – in principle – not be disqualified (the exception being when multiple players test positive at the same time). Thus, restraint must be shown when backdating the period of ineligibility in order not to undermine the FIFA ADR. The fact that the player was adversely affected by the sanction, because he could not participate in the team preparations for one season, should be taken into account.


On 19 June 2018 the Argentinian National Disciplinary Anti-Doping Tribunal (TNDA) decided to impose a 7 month period of ineligibility on the football player Damián Marcelo Musto after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Furosemide and Hydrochlorothiazide.

Hereafter in August 2018 FIFA appealed the TNDA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). FIFA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction of 2 years.

FIFA contended that the Athlete failed to establish the source of the prohibited substances found in his samples. The Athlete had also not demonstrated on a balance of probability that the supplements and capsules were contaminated.

FIFA accepted that the violation was not intentional. However it argued that the Athlete had acted negligently as he had not checked his supplements, nor mentioned these products on the doping control form.

The Athlete requested the Panel to dismiss FIFA's appeal and to uphold the Appealed Decision. He denied the intentional use of the substances and argued that he had established on a balance of probabilities how the prohibited substances had entered his system.

Further he asserted that CAS had no jurisdiction to consider this appeal because he is an national-level player. His rights were violated in the course of the anti-doping process because a departure of the ISTI had occurred.

The Panel determines that CAS has jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal and it settled some other procedural issues raised by the Athlete.

The Panel assessed and adressed the following issues:

  • Is the appeal to be dismissed because of fundamental and incurable breaches of the Player’s right to defense?
  • Is the appeal to be dismissed because there were breaches of the WADA ISTI?
  • In case the aforementioned questions are answered in the negative, did the Player commit an ADRV, what is the proper length of the period of ineligibility and when shall the latter commence?

The Panel concludes:

  • There were no fundamental (and not otherwise curable) breaches of the Athlete's right of defense demanding that FIFA's appeal be dismisses.
  • The Athlete's samples were in proper condition when analysed by the Madrid Laboratory.
  • A breach of the WADA ISTI per se does not invalidate the AAF. Only if the Athlete can establish that the departure from the WADA ISTI could have reasonably caused the ADRV, the onus shifts to FIFA to proof that in the case at hand such departure did not cause the AAF.
  • The samples tested in the Madrid Laboratory stem from the Athlete and were not tampered with throughout the whole external chain of custody.
  • The alleged degradation of the samples may not invalidate the findings of the Madrid Laboratory.
  • The presence of prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's samples by the Madrid Laboratory and accordingly he committed an anti-doping rule violation.
  • The Athlete acted at the higher end of light degree of fault or negligence.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 July 2019:

1.) The appeal filed by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association on 7 August 2018 against the decision issued by the Tribunal Nactional Disciplinario Antidopaje on 19 June 2018 is partially upheld.

2.) The decision of the Tribunal Nacional Disciplinario Antidopaje dated 19 June 2018 is set aside.

3.) Mr Damián Marcelo Musto is declared ineligible for a period of 11 months for having committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 6 of the FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations. The period of ineligibility shall start on 5 April 2019. Mr Damián Marcelo Musto shall receive credit for the period of ineligibility effectively served from 19 June 2018 until 15 August 2018.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

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

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin