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 2022_A_8766 Varvara Lepchenko vs ITF - Settlement

31 Jan 2023

In August 2021 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the American tennis player Varvara Lepchenko after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Adrafinil and Modafinil.

The ITF Independent Tribunal concluded that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional and decided on 3 March 2022 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. Hereafter in March 2022 the Athlete appealed the ITF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Athlete testified that following the ITF Tribunal hearing she returned home and found, in the lining of a travel bag that had been stored away, a bottle of bemetil capsules. She had purchased this product in Ukraine in October 2020 and from which she had consumed capsules in the days prior to the competition.

Those capsules, and an unopened bottle independently sourced by the ITF, were sent for testing at a WADA-accredited laboratory, both of which were found to contain Modafinil, which was not listed on the bottle label.

As a result the ITF accepted that the source of the Modafinil acid in the Athlete's samples was her ingestion of capsules of bemetil that she had purchased in Ukraine and were, unknowen to her, contamined with Modafinil.

The ITF holds that this is the Athlete's second Anti-Doping Rule Violation. However, because she bore No Fault or Negligence for her first violation, the current violation is treated as her first for the purpose of sanction. 

In October 2022 the Parties reached an agreement and they requested the Panel to confirm the content of a Settlement agreement into a Consent Award.

The parties have agreed with the written approval of WADA that:

  1. Ms. Lepchenko has committed a violation of the Programme;
  2. she must serve a period of ineligibility of twenty-one months; and
  3. that period starts on 19 August 2021, and so ends at midnight on 18 May 2023. In accordance with Programme articles 9.1 and 10.1.1, all ranking points and prize money obtained by Ms. Lepchenko at the Event and subsequent events prior to 27 July 2021 are disqualified.

Following assessment the Panel deems that it is right to ratify the Settlement Agreement and its terms are incorporated into this Consent Award.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 31 January 2023 that:

  1. The Settlement Agreement submitted to the CAS Court Office by the Parties on 26 October 2022 is hereby ratified by the Panel with the consent of the Parties and its terms are incorporated into this Consent Award.
  2. The arbitral procedure CAS 2022/A/8766 Varvara Lepchenko v International Tennis Federation is terminated and deleted from the CAS roll.
  3. The Parties are hereby ordered to perform their respective obligations and duties in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
  4. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the arbitration costs shall be borne by the CAS, save that the CAS Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 paid by Varvara Lepchenko shall be retained.
  5. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, each Party shall bear its own costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.
  6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2019_A_6292 Asbel Kiprop vs IAAF

23 Jun 2020

CAS 2019/A/6292 Asbel Kiprop v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)

Related case:

IAAF 2018 IAAF vs Asbel Kiprop
April 10, 2019

On 10 April 2019 the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Kenyan Athlete Asbel Kiprop after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

In first instance the Athlete's explanations for the positive test results were rejected. Also the Panel dismissed the applications filed by the Athlete in his defence.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the IAAF Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Thereupon the Athlete requested repeatedly to suspend the proceedings or to extend the set deadlines.

Ultimately in July 2019 the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division established that the Athlete had failed to file timely his Appeal Brief before the deadline had lapsed.

Therefore on 23 June 2020 the  President of the Appeals Arbitration Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, rules in camera, pronounces:

1.) The procedure CAS 2019/A/6292 Asbel Kiprop v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) is terminated and removed from the CAS roll.

2.) This Order is rendered without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 paid by Mr. Asbel Kiprop, which is retained by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

CAS 2021_ADD_42 IWF vs Nicu Vlad

16 Jun 2022

CAS 2021/ADD/42 International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Nicu Vlad

  • Weightlifting
  • Doping (assistance with an anti-doping rule violation)
  • CAS ADD jurisdiction
  • Admissibility of the request for arbitration
  • Interpretation of the scope of the IWF ADR
  • Statute of limitation
  • Means of proof regarding the ADR
  • Offence of assisting an anti-doping violation
  • Sanction

1. According to Article 8.1.1 of the 2021 IWF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR), the IWF has delegated its responsibility to act as first instance to the CAS ADD. Furthermore, Article A2 of the CAS ADD Rules provides that 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 ADD to conduct anti-doping proceedings and impose applicable sanctions.

2. Pursuant to Article A13 of the CAS ADD Rules, a Request for Arbitration must contain “the name and full address of the Respondent(s)”. Yet, the addresses communicated after the filing of the Request for Arbitration by the claimant may be considered valid where there is no contrary indication by the respondent. To decide otherwise would give a disproportionate importance to the formal conditions of the Request for Arbitration, as soon as the respondent was successfully notified by email and, thereafter, by courier via his counsel and in light of the minimal impact for the respondent to have his case heard on the merits rather than to have it disposed of on a technicality.

3. According to Swiss law, statutes and regulations of associations have to be construed and interpreted in the same way as public laws. Accordingly, the interpretation of the statutes and rules of sport associations must be objective and always start with the wording of the rule. The intentions (objectively construed) of the association including any relevant historical background may be taken into consideration. In any event, anti-doping rules shall be construed in a manner which will “discern the intention of the rule maker” rather than frustrate it. Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation to determine the meaning when the interpretation “leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable”. In this respect, the scope of the 2009 IWF ADR, worded “shall apply to the IWF, each National Federation of the IWF, and each Participant in the activities of the IWF”, is broad. An interpretation according to which natural persons holding high offices of the IWF or of other IFs or NFs do not fall under the categories “IWF” and “National Federations” of the scope of the 2009 IWF ADR would de facto grant immunity for anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs) committed by those persons although, in accordance with Article 3.4.2 of the IWF Constitution and Article 14.1 of the 2009 IWF ADR), said persons in their capacity as board members etc., are responsible to fully comply with the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) and to implement effective mechanisms to combat any doping by its members. Such interpretation leads to a result that is both “manifestly absurd” and “unreasonable”, and which the draftsmen of the 2009 IWF ADR (and the 2009 WADC) could surely not have intended.

4. Article 49 (1) and (4) (“Prescription”) of the Final Chapter of the Swiss Civil Code provides that “Where the new laws specifies a longer period than the previous law, the new applies, provided prescription has not yet taken effect under the previous law”. Therefore, any retroactive extension of the limitation period provided by the IWF ADR 2015 from 8 to 10 years does not violate Swiss law. Moreover, the difficulty related to gathering evidence is inherent to long statute of limitation periods, which do not in and of themselves violate the respondent’s rights.

5. Pursuant to Article 3.2 of the 2009, 2012 and 2015 IWF ADR, an ADRV can be established by any reliable means including the content of an authentic and contemporaneous correspondence.

6. Article 2.8 of the 2009 IWF ADR covers numerous acts, which are intended to assist another or a third party’s ADRV. The assistance can constitute assistance provided in the preliminary stages before an ADRV is committed. It also covers acts, which are supposed to prevent an ADRV from being discovered after it has been committed. The rule does not stipulate how substantial the assistance has to be in order to fulfil the elements of the Article 2.8 IWF ADR, however, the standard is probably low because according to the wording of the provision, even just “any type of complicity” is sufficient. An act of assistance for the purposes of Article 2.8 also requires that the person concerned is aware of the anti-doping rule violation committed by another party, otherwise there is no intent to assist a third-part in the first place.

7. Pursuant to Article 10.3.2 of the 2009 IWF ADR, the period of ineligibility imposed for the violation of Article 2.8 shall be a minimum of four years up to a lifetime unless the conditions for exceptional circumstances pursuant Article 10.5 of the 2012 IWF ADR are met. The fact that (i) an ADRV is committed by a person holding high offices, (ii) the ADRVs are serious and (iii) the official’s conduct is both deceptive and obstructing, are all elements allowing to consider a lifetime period of ineligibility.



Mr Nicu Vlad is the former President (1997-2021) and former Head-Coach (1998-2010) of the Romanian Weightlifting Federation (FRH), Vice-President of the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) Anti-Doping Commission (2010-2013) and Chairman of the IWF Technical Committee (2017-2021).

In his capacities as Chairman of the IWF’s Anti-Doping Commission and Vice-President of the Romanian Olympic Committee Mr Vlad was also involved and supervised the FRH and IWF anti-doping activities. In particular the administration of Adverse Analytical Finding (AAFs) and anti-doping rule violations committed by FRH athletes.

In June 2021 the ITA, on behalf of the IWF, reported anti-doping rule violations against the Romanian weightlifter Roxana Cocos for the presence of a Prohibited Substance in her 13 April 2012 Sample and for resorting to sample substitution on 27 June 2012. Consequently on 26 November 2021, the ITA issued a decision imposing a lifetime eligibility on the Athlete for her multiple anti-doping rule violations.

ITA conducted an anti-doping investigation and thereupon reported anti-doping rule violations agains Mr Vlad for Tampering with the Doping Control process and for his complicity in covering the anti-doping rule violations committed by the Athlete Roxana Cocos.

After notification the IWF filed a request for Arbitration with the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS ADD) as first-instance authority. The Sole Arbitrator settled the case based on the Parties' written submissions.

The IWF contended that Mr Vlad knowingly did not enforce Ms Cocos’ Provisional Suspensions. The content of the emails of 20 and 24 July 2012 are abundantly clear: the Athlete was to be removed from the 2012 London Olympic Games and the fear of having her test positive (and not being able to conceal it) were expressly mentioned by the Mr Vlad. The fact that the email audit trail stops after 24 July 2012 is not only expected, but further corroborates the evidence of the ADRV.

Mr Vlad asserted that he is not subject to the IWF ADR; the 10-year statitute of limitation is not applicable in this case; and he denied that he had tampered the doping control process.

Following assessment of the Parties' written submissions and annexes the Sole Arbitrator concludes:

  • Mr Vlad is bound by subsequent versions of the 2009 IWF ADR including the 2021 IWF ADR.
  • The present case in not time-barred regarding the statutes of limitations.
  • With knowledge and intent Mr Vlad acted complict in the anti-doping rules committed by the Athlete Cocos in 2012.
  • A lifetime period of ineligibility is appropriate to the severity and Mr Vlad’s misbehaviour.

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

  1. The request for arbitration filed by the International Testing Agency on 22 December 2021, acting on delegation from the International Weightlifting Federation, against Mr. Nicu Vlad is upheld.
  2. Mr Nicu Vlad is found to have committed violations of Article 2.8 of the 2009 International Weightlifting Anti-Doping Rules.
  3. A lifetime Ineligibility is imposed on Mr Nicu Vlad starting on the date of this Award.
  4. (…).
  5. (…).
  6. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2021_A_8296 WADA vs FIFA & Vladimir Obukhov

16 Jun 2022

CAS 2021/A/8296 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) & Vladimir Obukhov

  • Football
  • Doping (methandienone)
  • Non-binding force of CAS precedents
  • Purpose and limits of the provision on substantial assistance
  • Conditions for finding substantial assistance
  • Consequences of a finding of substantial assistance
  • Determination of the period of ineligibility to be suspended

1. Each case must be decided on its own facts. Although consistency is a virtue, correctness remains a higher one.

2. Substantial Assistance is an essential mechanism in the fight against doping. It is therefore important that the objective to encourage athletes, subject to the imposition of an ineligibility period, to come forward if they are aware of doping offences committed by other persons, is not undermined by an overly restrictive application of the provision. At the same time, however, it is important that “benefits” to athletes are not applied too lightly, without clear evidence of Substantial Assistance: the fight against doping is a serious matter, and only effective assistance in its pursuit can entitle an athlete to obtain a benefit with respect to the ineligibility period he/she has to serve for his/her anti-doping rule violation.

3. For Substantial Assistance to be found, it is not necessary that the information is in itself a sufficient basis to secure the finding of an anti-doping rule violation, but only for the bringing of a case – which means that there is a likelihood, and not necessarily a certainty, of a violation. Indeed, Substantial Assistance may also result in “discovering” an anti-doping rule violation – irrespective of its subsequent “establishment”, for which additional elements (such as a hearing of the accused) may be needed. In summary, concrete (and not merely speculative) information must be provided, which (at least) would be considered sufficient to bring a case – even though this information, however important, might need further corroboration in order to secure a finding against another person.

4. A finding of Substantial Assistance may only entail the suspension of a portion of the ineligibility period, and not the reduction of the sanction. In other words, the deciding body cannot directly impose a reduced sanction, it has to impose the full ineligibility period to be served for the anti-doping rule violation, and then suspend a portion of such period.

5. The criteria to be considered in the determination of the extent to which the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility may be suspended are i) the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation; and ii) the significance of the Substantial Assistance rendered, provided however that iii) no more than three-quarters of the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility may be suspended. In connection with the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation, any performance-enhancing benefit which the person providing Substantial Assistance may be likely to still enjoy must be considered, while in the assessment of the importance of the Substantial Assistance, a) the number of individuals implicated, b) the status of those individuals in the sport, c) whether a scheme of trafficking under Article 2.7 or administration under Article 2.8 of the WADC was involved, and d) whether the violation involved a substance or method which is not readily detectible in testing, are to be taken into account. As a general matter, the earlier in the results management process the Substantial Assistance is provided, the greater the percentage of the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility may be suspended. The maximum suspension of the ineligibility period shall only be applied in very exceptional cases.



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 March 2021 the International Football Federation (FIFA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Vladimir Obukhov for the use of the prohibited substance Metandienone in March 2013. After notification the Athlete admitted the violaton and provided substantial assistance to FIFA.

The Athlete provided evidence to FIFA about players of the Football Club Torpedo Moscow under instructions using medical products administered by medical personel. Following a Cooperation Agreement the FIFA Disciplinary Committee decided on 14 July 2021 to impose a reduced 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in September 2021 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the FIFA decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibilty on the Athlete.

WADA finds that in this case there is no dispute that the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation attracting a period of ineligibility of two years. The only issue to be decided within these appeal proceedings is whether any part of the applicable two-year period of ineligibility could be suspended based on the Substantial Assistance provision set by the 2012 FIFA ADR.

WADA contended that this should be answered in the negative. Therefore, it requests the Panel to set aside the Decision and impose on the Athlete a period of ineligibility of two years.

FIFA and the Athlete argued that the Appealed Decision was correctly adopted, with full regard for the specificities of the case and with a sanction that is just and proportionate.

In light of the Parties’ submissions and requests, the Panel assessed and addressed the following issues:

  • did the Athlete provide Substantial Assistance within the meaning of the FIFA ADR?
  • if he did, is the Athlete entitled to a “reduction” or to a “suspension” of the otherwise applicable ineligibility period? If so, in what measure?
  • if he did not, what are the consequences to be drawn?

The Panel confirms that FIFA’s finding that the cooperation given by the Athlete amounted to Substantial Assistance under Article 20 of the FIFA ADR. The challenge brought in this respect by WADA to the Decision is to be dismissed.

The Panel deems finds that the period of ineligibility to be imposed on the Athlete should be suspended only in the measure of 12 months. Even though the Substantial Assistance did not lead to any further proceedings, it concerned an anti-doping rule violation occurring 8 years before it was rendered, it was promptly given as soon as the Athlete received a notification of his potential anti-doping rule violation, it concerned the practice of a doctor, i.e. of an individual having peculiar responsibilities within a football club, it exposed a potential violation that could involve a number of other players and individuals.

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

  1. The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) on 8 September 2021 against the decision rendered by the Disciplinary Committee of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) on 14 July 2021 in the matter concerning Mr Vladimir Obukhov is partially granted.
  2. The decision rendered by the Disciplinary Committee of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) on 14 July 2021 is modified as follows:

    1. Mr Vladimir Obukhov is declared ineligible for a period of twenty-four (24) months starting the date of this Award, with credit given for the period of suspension already served from 2 June 2021 to 2 December 2021.

    2. The remaining ineligibility period imposed on Mr Vladimir Obukhov is suspended in a measure of 12 months on the basis of the Substantial Assistance provided pursuant to the Cooperation Agreement signed by Mr Obukhov and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).

  3. The Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which is retained by the CAS.
  4. (…).
  5. All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2018_A_5885 Scott Salmond vs IIHF | WADA vs IIHF & Scott Salmond

6 Mar 2020
  • CAS 2018/A/5885 Scott Salmond v. International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) &
  • CAS 2018/A/5936 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. IIHF & Scott Salmond


  • Ice Hockey
  • Doping (complicity)
  • Comfortable satisfaction
  • Departures from the ISTI
  • Identification of the DCO
  • Notification of potential consequences for failing to provide a sample
  • Right of a coach or employee of a national federation to participate in the doping control process
  • Departures from the RMHD Guidelines and DCO Tool Kit Manual
  • Intent in the context of complicity
  • Requirement of an underlying ADRV in the context of complicity
  • Minimum sanction

1. The “comfortable satisfaction” standard of proof is higher than a mere balance of probabilities. The test of comfortable satisfaction must take into account all the 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.

2. The existence of certain standards as detailed in the International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI) and anti-doping rules is considered to be fundamental and central to ensuring integrity in the administration of sample collection such that certain departures therefrom could result in the automatic invalidation of an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV). To demonstrate such departure, the consideration of the evidence presented by the parties concerning the circumstances of the doping control would have to show that violations of mandatory requirements, if any, could have reasonably caused the ADRV.

3. A Doping Control Officer (DCO) will have satisfied the requirements regarding identification under the ISTI by carrying an authorization letter from the testing authority as well as an identification which includes his/her name, photograph, and the expiry date of the identification. The Letter of Authorization is a document used to show that the sample collection personnel has the authority to collect the sample. There is no specific rule that requires mandatorily the presentation of a paper identification and a contrario that forbids electronic identification (a modern form of ID increasingly used in other contexts). Consequently, an electronic identification is satisfactory for the purposes of identification under the ISTI.

4. In accordance with Article 5.4.1 (e)(iii) of the ISTI, the athlete should be advised of the possible consequences of failure to comply. On the plain reading of this provision, there is no reference to providing such a warning to a coach or other employee of the national federation. Moreover, the word “should” implies some form of recommendation or guideline and therefore does not impose an obligation. “Should” does not read as a “must”.

5. The ISTI does not give any right to a coach or employee of a national federation to participate in the doping control process.

6. The Results Management, Hearings and Decisions (RMHD) Guidelines and the Doping Control Officer’s Training Tool Kit Manual contain guidelines, not requirements. These guidelines contain guidance as to how best to comply with the mandatory requirements in the ISTI or the anti-doping rules, but they do not themselves constitute mandatory requirements. Besides, the “Introduction and Scope” of the RMHD Guidelines underlines that the Guidelines are not mandatory but are intended to provide clarity and additional guidance to anti-doping organisations as to the most efficient, effective and responsible way of discharging their responsibilities in terms of results management.

7. In order to determine a violation of the Complicity article, intent is to be determined based on the conduct of the individual charged with the alleged violation, not the person who himself/herself is the subject of the doping control. In this context, intent refers simply to the intent to act, not necessarily to the intent to achieve the result or to commit a doping violation. The act of encouragement itself constitutes sufficient intent for the purposes of Article 2.9 WADC.

8. The act of encouraging an anti-doping rule violation necessarily occurs before any commission of the ADRV that has been encouraged. Therefore, no underlying ADRV is required for the purposes of Article 2.9 WADC.

9. As complicity is an intentional ADRV, no reduction is permitted below the two year minimum sanction on grounds of No Significant Fault or Negligence. Consequently, a one-year period of ineligibility cannot be imposed on grounds of proportionality, since such decision departs from the mandated minimum set out in the WADC. The deciding body must impose a sanction that respects the applicable rules, including the mandated two-year minimum. Further reduction on the basis of proportionality is not acceptable. The WADC has been found repeatedly to be proportional in its approach to sanctions, and the question of fault has already been built into its assessment of length of sanction.


Mr. Scott Salmond is a former Senior Vice President and Head of Men’s Elite Performance for Hockey Canada.

On 26 July 2018 the Disciplinary Board of the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) determined that Mr. Salmond had committed an anti-doping rule violation in December 2017 when he allegedly instructed Mr. Brandon Kozun, a member of the National Ice Hockey Team of Canada, to refuse sample collection during a doping control. As a result of his actions, Mr. Salmond was suspended from all ice hockey activities for a period of one year.

Hereafter both Mr. Salmond and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the IIHF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

WADA seeked to increase Mr. Salmond’s period of ineligibility to between two to four years. By contrast Mr. Salmond seeked a finding that he did not commit an anti-doping rule violation, or alternatively, apply the principle of proportionality to reduce the period of ineligibility to less than 12 months.

Mr. Salmond alleged that did not commit an ADRV because various departures from the International Standard for Testing and Investigations and associated rules that occurred on 12 December 2017 caused the alleged doping violation.

Both WADA and the IIHF contended that Mr. Salmond explicitly and intentionally instructed Mr. Kozun not to provide a sample and thus intended the actions he undertook.

They disputed Mr. Salmond's attempts to associate state-sponsored doping control manipulations in Russia with the events that took place on 12 December 2017. Further they argued that the sample collection was never abandoned and there were no departures from the ISTI and associated rules.

Regarding preliminary procedural matters the Panel determines:

  • to deny Mr. Salmond's request that the case file in Mr. Kozun's procedure be turned over to Mr. Salmond;
  • it had no access to all the original video footage that recorded the events in question;
  • the witness statement of the WADA Director of Standards and Harmonization was not admitted.

Following assessment of the evidence and the Parties' written and oral submissions the Panel concludes:

  • Mr. Salmond and its sports offial were seeking retrospectively to put the best construction possible on the unfortunate events of that morning in order to justify Mr. Salmond's actions, uncharacteristic as they may have been.
  • The sample collection was never abondoned but concluded when Mr. Salmond instructed Mr. Kozun not to provide a sample.
  • Mr. Salmond did not successfully establish any departures from the ISTI and, if (quod non) he had established any, these could not reasonably (or sensibly, based on the facts presented) have caused the ADRV in the present case.
  • The IIHF was not estopped from asserting that Mr. Salmond committed and ADRV since IIHF (via IDTM) was largely responsible for the events of 12 December 2017.
  • Mr. Salmond must have known or should have known as an experienced executive in Hockey Canada, having participated in over 200 doping controls, that the failure or the refusal of Mr. Kozun to submit to doping control could constitute an ADRV.
  • Mr. Salmond intentionally encouraged Mr. Kozun to not submit a sample, and that not submitting a sample once doping control has been properly notified is an ADRV, within the meaning of Article 2.9 of the WADC.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 March 2020 that:

1.) The appeal filed by Mr. Scott Salmond on 4 September 2018 against the International Ice Hockey Federation with respect to the decision of the Disciplinary Board of the IIHF dated 26 July 2018 is dismissed.

2.) The appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency on 4 October 2018 against the International Ice Hockey Federation and Mr. Scott Salmond with respect the decision of the Disciplinary Board of the IIHF dated 26 July 2018 is upheld.

3.) Mr. Scott Salmond is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility as from 1 June 2018.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

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

CAS OG_AD_2018_03 WCF vs Aleksandr Krushelnitckii

3 Dec 2018

CAS anti-doping Division (OG PyeongChang) AD 18/003 World Curling Federation (WCF) v. Aleksandr Krushelnickii

Related case:

CAS OG_AD_2018_03 IOC vs Aleksandr Krushelnitckii - Partial Award
February 22, 2018


  • Curling
  • Doping (meldonium)
  • Burden and standard of proof
  • Admissibility of polygraph test results and expert opinion in relation to such results
  • Principles applicable to the source of the prohibited substance
  • Establishment of the source of the prohibited substance as proof of absence of intent
  • Sabotage

1. According to Article 3.1 of the WCF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR), WCF shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether WCF has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. The standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where these anti-doping rules place the burden of proof upon the athlete alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified acts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability.

2. Where there is no challenge to the conduct of a polygraph test or the expertise of the tester, the evidence should be admitted and taken into account knowing that it rises no higher than adding some force to the athlete’s declaration of innocence but not supplanting the need to carefully consider all other evidence in the case in determining whether the burden of proof has been discharged.

3. It is for an athlete to establish the source of the prohibited substance, not for the anti-doping organization to prove an alternative source to that contended for by the athlete. An athlete has to do so on the balance of probabilities. Evidence establishing that a scenario is possible is not enough to establish the origin of the prohibited substance. An athlete must do so with evidence, not speculation. It is insufficient for an athlete to deny deliberate ingestion of a prohibited substance and, accordingly, to assert that there must be an innocent explanation for its presence in his system. If there are two competing explanations for the presence of the prohibited substance, the rejection of one does not oblige (though it may permit) the hearing body to opt for the other. The conclusion that the other is not proven is always available to the hearing body. In such a situation there are three choices, not just two, for the hearing body.

4. Establishment of the source of the prohibited substance in a sample is not mandated in order to prove an absence of intent. However, the likelihood of finding lack of intent in the absence of proof of source would be extremely rare, and if an athlete cannot prove source it leaves the narrowest of corridors through which the athlete must pass to discharge the burden which lies upon him.

5. The threshold for establishing sabotage as the reason for an ADRV is very high. Any proposed sabotage theory must be supported by reliable and credible evidence, not speculation or assertions of absence of motive. It is insufficient for an athlete to simply raise a hypothesis of sabotage without corroborating evidence and then to simply declare that sabotage is the only possible explanation.


Mr Aleksandr Krushelnitckii is a Russian Athlete competing in the Curling events at the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Winter Games.

On 18 February 2018 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his A and B samples - provided on 12 and 13 February 2018 - tested positive for the prohibited susbstance Meldonium.

Following notification the Athlete accepted the test results and requested to be heard for the CAS Anti-Doping Division Panel (CAS ADD). The World Curling Federation (WCF) requested the Panel to order a provisional suspension beyond the period of the Games.

In a Partial Award the CAS ADD decided on 22 February 2018 to exclude the Athlete from the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Winter Games and to disqualify his obtained results in the Mixed Doubles Curling event at the Olympic Winter Games.

Hereafter the WCF requested the Sole Arbitrator to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for committing an anti-doping rule violation. The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. 

Supported by expert witnesses the Athlete argued that the only possible explanation for the presence of Meldonium in his urine samples is that the Meldonium was somehow added into his food or drink after he arrived in the Olympic Village, without his knowledge or involvement. So likely he was the victim of sabotage and should not be suspended at all in accordance with Article 10.4 of the WCF ADR.

In this procedure the Sole Arbitrator addressed the following issues:

  • As it has been established that an ADRV has occurred under Article 2.1 WCF ADR, has the Athlete established that the ADRV was not intentional under Article 10.2.1.1?
  • Has the athlete established that he bears no fault or negligence under Article 10.4 WCF ADR?
  • Has the Athlete established that he bears no significant fault or negligence under Article 10.5.1 WCF ADR?
  • Has the athlete established that the mandatory period of ineligibility of four years should be reduced by reason of Prompt Admission under article 10.6.3, or by reason of the principle of proportionality?
  • What is the quantum of any sanction that should be imposed?
  • What is the commencement date of any period of ineligibility pursuant to Article 10.11 WCF ADR?

The Sole Arbitrator concludes:

  • The Athlete has not established that the ADRV was not intentional under Article 10.2.1 WCF ADR.
  • The Athlete has not established the source of the Prohibited Substance and is not entitled to elimination or reduction of the period of ineligibility under Article 10.4 or Article 10.5 WCF ADR.
  • The Athlete has not established an entitlement to reduction of a period of ineligibility under Article 10.6.3 WCF ADR.
  • The Athlete has not established that there should be any reduction in a period of ineligibility on the basis of the proportionality principle.

Therefore the CAS Anti-doping Division decides on 3 December 2018:

1.) The application of the World Curling Federation is granted and therefore, Mr Aleksandr Krushelnickii is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four years commencing on the date of his voluntary provisional suspension (i.e. 12 February 2018).

2.) The present award is rendered free of charge.

3.) (…).

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

CAS OG_AD_2016_09 IOC vs Qian Chen

6 Apr 2017

CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/009 & 013 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Qian Chen

  • Modern Pentathlon
  • Doping (hydrochlorothiazide)
  • Automatic disqualification based on Art. 9 IOC ADR
  • Proportionality of the disqualification

1. Art. 9 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) clearly states that an anti-doping rule violation in connection with an in-competition test automatically leads to disqualification of the result obtained in the competition in question. No flexibility is provided at all. The automatic disqualification pursuant to this article is nothing but the objective consequence of an objective fact, i.e. the adverse analytical finding. It is an application of a condition of ineligibility retroactively assessed. The aforementioned condition implies that the athlete cannot validly and legitimately compete in a competition of an individual sport during the Olympic Games if a prohibited substance is present in his or her body irrespective of whether the source of that presence can in anyway be linked to a fault or negligence of the athlete and/or irrespective of any effect that substance may have had on his or her performance or not.

2. Within the framework of Art. 9 IOC ADR, and as part of the anti-doping system and the need of the fight against doping in sports, the issue of proportionality has already been taken into account. Indeed, within this system the possibility exists that an athlete who bears no fault or negligence, nor she or he had a known intention to enhance the sportive performance will be automatically disqualified for an established anti-doping rule violation in connection with an in-competition test. However, it is not a question of culpability, but a consequence of circumstances in which an athlete did not meet the equal standards applicable to all the participants in the competition. The mere participation of the athlete in a competition while a prohibited substance was present in his or her body by itself establishes a situation of non-equality between him or her and the other participants in the competition, regardless of the question of culpability or intention.



Ms. Qian Chen is a Chinese Athlete competing in the Women’s Modern Pentathlon event at the 2016 Rio Olympic Games.

On 20 August 2016 and on 30 September 2016 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reported 2 anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete after her A and B samples - provided on 17 August and on 19 August 2016 - tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide. Following notification the IOC filed an application with the CAS Anti-Doping Division and both cases were consolidated.

The Athlete accepted the test results, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested to uphold her results at the Games. She demonstrated with reports issued by two Chinese Labs that contaminated fruit sugar tablets were the source of the positive tests.

The IOC requested the Sole Arbitrator to exclude the Athlete from the 2016 Rio Olympic Games and to disqualify her results because of the 2 anti-doping rule violation she had committed. Further the IOC contended that the findings in the Chinese Lab reports were erroneous.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly that she committed an anti-doping rule violation. Under the IOC ADR disqualification of the Athlete's results is an automatic consequence of an anti-doping rule violation.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that the submissions of the Athlete in respect of the possible source and the possible explanation for the existence of the prohibited substance in her body are irrelevant to the case at hand, however will be examined thoroughly and dealt with by her International Federation in the process of the result management in terms of sanctions beyond the Games.

Therefore the Sole Arbitrator decides on 6 April 2017:

1.) The application CAS AD 16/09 is deemed withdrawn.

2.) The application CAS AD 16/13 is granted.

3.) The Athlete is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.1 of the IOC ADR.

4.) The results obtained by the Athlete in the Women’s Modern Pentathlon event at the Olympic Games Rio 2016, in which she finished 4th, are disqualified with all consequences, including forfeiture of her Olympic diploma.

5.) The Athlete is ordered to return her diploma.

6.) The Union Internationale de Pentathlon Moderne is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.

CAS 2020_A_7247 Guillermo Bertola vs FINA - Settlement

25 Jan 2021

CAS 2020/A/7247 Guillermo Bertola v. Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA)

Related case:

FINA 2020 FINA vs Guillermo Bertola
June 17, 2020


  • Aquatics (swimming)
  • Doping (blood doping)
  • 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 agreemen


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 a settlement if all parties to the dispute agree. The 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 December 2019 FINA reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Argentine swimmer Guillermo Bertola after an ITA Expert Panel concluded that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that he had used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method.

Consequently the FINA Doping Panel decided on 17 June 2020 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The FINA Panel concluded that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that he had acted not intentionally when he accepted a blood transfusion from his mother. He also failed to establish grounds for a reduced sanction. 

Hereafter in July 2020 the Athlete appealed the FINA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and thereupon in September 2020 the Parties in this case reached a Settlement Agreement. They requested the Panel to endorse this Settlement Agreement and to render a Consent Award.

The Parties agreed that the sanction of 4 years stands, yet the commencement of the period of ineligibility is backdated by 15 months based on the Athlete's timely admission. Following assessment the Panel deemed that this is a bona fide settlement of the dispute brought to its attention.

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

1.) The Settlement Agreement submitted to the CAS Court Office by the Parties on 30 October 2020 is hereby ratified by the CAS with the consent of the Parties and its relevant terms are incorporated into this arbitral award.

2.) The terms of the Settlement Agreement modify Items 6.2 and 6.3 of the decision of the Anti-Doping Panel of the Fédération Internationale de Natation of 17 June 2020.

3.) Each Party is hereby ordered to perform the obligations and duties as per the Settlement Agreement referred to above.

(…)

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