CAS 2022/A/8727 United Kingdom Anti-Doping Limited v. Wayne Boardman

On 26 June 2021, UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) collected an In-Competition urine Sample from Mr Boardman following a Mid-Season International match between England and Wales Wheelchair Rugby League teams. Analysis of Boardman’s urine Sample returned an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) for metabolites of oxandrolone.

Mr Boardman’s case was first heard by the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) and in a decision dated 23 February 2022, the NADP found ADRV charges proved, but ordered that Mr Boardman should not be subject to any period of Ineligibility on the basis he had been able to show he had acted with No Fault or Negligence. 

UKAD sought to appeal the NADP’s decision to impose no period of Ineligibility on Mr Boardman. In light of Mr Boardman’s status as an International Level athlete, The appeal proceedings were heard before the CAS and an oral hearing took place before a Sole Arbitrator on 13 July 2022.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 28 September 2022 that:

1.) The appeal filed on 15 March 2022 by United Kingdom Anti-Doping Limited against Wayne Boardman with respect to the decision taken by the National Anti-Doping Panel on 23 February 2022 is partially upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the National Anti-Doping Panel on 23 February 2022 is set aside.

3.) Mr Wayne Boardman is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Articles 2.1 and/or 2.2 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules.

4.) Mr Wayne Boardman is sanctioned with a 13-month period of ineligibility starting from 26 June 2021, with credit for any suspension already served by Mr Wayne Boardman.

5.) All competitive results achieved by Mr Wayne Boardman from 26 June 2021 through to and including 28 September 2021 are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

6.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office in a separate letter, shall be borne equally by the Parties.

7.) Each Party shall bear their own costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.

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

CAS 2003/A/505 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) v. Alicia Pitts, USA Cycling, Inc. & United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)

• Cycling
• Doping (methadone)
• CAS Jurisdiction
• Presence of a prohibited substance in the athlete’s body
• Duty of the athlete of have knowledge of the regulations
• Determination of the sanction in view of mitigating circumstances

1. Absent any adjudication procedure consistent with the international standards in anti-doping policy provided by the competent national federation’ rules, the basis for the CAS jurisdiction can be the information on the closing of a case made by a national anti-doping agency. This information can indeed be considered to be the final ruling made at the level of the national federation asked for by UCI Anti-doping Examination Regulations (AER). UCI is therefore entitled to appeal before the CAS against such ruling according to its rules and within the meaning of article R47 of the CAS Code.

2. The presence of a prohibited substance such as methadone in the body of a rider constitutes an offence of doping. It does not matter whether the substance of methadone can be considered a performance enhancing substance or not. It is also not relevant whether the rider ingested any methadone in the three days prior to the event or during an unknown period before. Methadone is not allowed to be used for medical treatment under the UCI AER.

3. No athlete can invoke his or her unawareness of the existence of anti-doping rules or the impossibility of having knowledge of these rules. When signing the backside of his/her licence, a rider has to declare that s/he undertakes to respect the Constitution and Regulations of the UCI, its Continental Confederations and its National Federations. It is his/her responsibility to make sure that s/he knows what s/he is signing to. Being the expression of the general principle of law that “ignorance of law is no excuse”, art. 7 UCI AER rules that it is “the personal responsibility of every rider to ensure that they neither use any prohibited substance or prohibited method nor permit any such substance or method to be used”. This includes the obligation to achieve knowledge on the respective provisions.

4. The gravity of the medical condition of a rider, the well-documented prescription of methadone as pain reliever in his/her condition, his/her advanced age and the specific circumstances of the aims why s/he participated at the event, his/her role model for youths in the fight against doping in sports over years and his/her honesty and personal integrity, constitute sufficient elements under UCI AER to reduce the duration of suspension to the minimum, which is half a year. According to UCI AER, the period of inactivity will be automatically added to the period of suspension.

In May 2003 the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist Alicia Pitts after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Methadone.

Thereupon the USADA Anti-Doping Review Panel established that the Athlete had a legitimate medical condition well documented by her physician that requred her use of Methadone. Also the Athlete had not used the substance in the preceding 3 days and therefore not mentioned on the Doping Control Form as stipulated. As a result the Review Panel ruled that no doping violation occurred.

After deliberations regarding disciplinary proceedings against the Athlete the UCI appealed the USADA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The UCI requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a sanction on the Athlete.

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

Considering the applicable Rules the Panel holds that it does not matter whether the substance of Methadone can be considered a performance enhancing substance or not. It is also not relevant for this fact whether the Athlete ingested any Methadone in the three days prior to the event or during an unknown period before.

The Panel agrees that the USADA Doping Control Form in question only asks for declaration of medication and supplements taken during the preceding 3 days and does not provide for a place on the form to declare medications taken earlier. The Panel deems this Form is not in full line with the applicable UCI Rules.

Further the Panel determines that there are sufficient grounds for a reduced sanction, although the Panel regrets that the UCI Rules allows no exceptional circumstances for exclusion of a suspension.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 19 December 2003

1.) The appeal filed by the UCI on 21 August 2003 is upheld.

2.) The decision of USADA of 29 May 2003, 1 July 2003 and communicated on behalf of USADA on 3 July 2003 is annulled.

3.) Mrs. Pitts is sanctioned as follows:

• disqualification from the Track World Cup Qualifier of 28 March 2003 in Hollywood, Florida, USA;
• suspension for six months from 20th December 2003 to 31 July 2004.

(…).

CAS 2021/A/8012 Natalya Antyukh v. World Athletics (WA)

Related case:

CAS 2020_O_6759 World Athletics vs RusAF & Natalya Antyukh
April 7, 2021

• Athletics (sprint & hurdles)
• Doping (methasterone, boldenone, desoxymethyltestosterone, oxabolone, DHEA, 1-testosterone)
• Discretion of a CAS panel to exclude evidence under Article R57 para. 3 of the CAS Code
• Standard of proof
• Methods of establishing facts
• Assessment of circumstantial evidence
• Lex mitior
• Principle of fairness

1. In the appropriate circumstances, a CAS panel has the discretion to exclude evidence. It must be remembered, however, that such discretion should be exercised with restraint in order to preserve the de novo character of the CAS appeal proceedings and should be limited to those circumstances where the new material is adduced in an abusive way or with some measure of bad faith, for example, where the evidence is in hand at the first instance hearing but is withheld for strategic purposes and adduced for the first time on appeal.

2. The “comfortable satisfaction” standard is lower than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt but higher than other civil standards such as the balance of probabilities. To reach this comfortable satisfaction, a CAS panel should have in mind the seriousness of allegation which is made. It follows that this standard of proof is a kind of sliding scale, based on the allegations at stake: the more serious the allegation and its consequences, the higher certainty (level of proof) the panel would require to be “comfortably satisfied”. It should be borne in mind, however, that, 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, however, remains to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations.

3. Rule 33.3 of the IAAF 2013 Anti-Doping Regulations provides that facts related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means. This rule is not a requirement that the evidence adduced be ‘reliable evidence’ (whatever that might mean). 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 anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) may be established. 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 evidence of use by an athlete, the CAS panel must assess all the circumstantial 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. In other words, 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, that is, with as much certainty as human affairs can require or admit of.

5. The principle of lex mitior does not permit one to pick and choose between the most favourable individual provisions from different sets of rules; such would indeed offend against the principle of legality.

6. A rule is subject to a ‘general principle of fairness’ which provides a discretion on the part of a tribunal to modify the application of the rule where to apply it strictly would be unfair.

Ms. Natalya Antyukh is a Russian Athlete competing at the 2012 London Olympic Games and at the 2011 World Championships in Daegu. She retired from professional sport and competition in 2017.

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.

Based on the findings of the McLaren Reports the Athletics Integrity (AIU) on behalf on World Athletics reported in May 2019 anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete. In this matter the disclosed evidence (the Moscow Washout Schedules) listed 4 samples, provided by the Athlete, in which the presence had been established of the substances 1-Testosterone, Boldenone, Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone,  Desoxymethyltestosterone, Methasterone and Oxabolone.

In December 2019 the Athlete's case was referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance procedure and thereupon a 4 year period of ineligibility was imposed on the Athlete on 7 April 2021.

Hereafter in May 2021 the Athlete appealed the first instance decision with the CAS Appeals Division and requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision.

The Athlete denied the use of prohibited substances, nor that she had provided unofficial samples, while she officially was tested before without issues. She asserted that World Athletics failed to discharge its burden on the evidence and that the alleged anti-doping rule violations were unproved.

Further she disputed the reliability of the filed evidence in this case provided by World Athletics, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenkov and pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence.

The AIU contended that there are aggravating circumstances in this case because the Athlete was engaged in the washout testing program which was part of a doping plan or scheme. The Moscow Washout Schedules showed that in 2013 the Athlete had provided 4 unofficial samples and that she had used 6 different prohibited substances in a one month period.

After assessment of the evidence the Panel is comfortably satisfied that, during the period on or about 30 June 2013 to and including on or about 25 July 2013, the Athlete used the prohibited substances Methasterone, Boldenone, Desoxymethyltestosterone, Oxabolone, Prasterone (DHEA) and 1-testosterone.

The Panel agrees that there are aggravating circumstances in this case and that a period of 4 years is a proportionate sanction.

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

1. The appeal filed by Ms Natalia Antyukh on 21 May 2021 against the Award issued by the CAS Court Office on 7 April 2021 is partially upheld.
2. Ms Natalia Antyukh is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 32.2 of the IAAF Competition Rules 2012-2013.
3. Ms Natalia Antyukh is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting from (and including) 7 April 2021.
4. All competitive results achieved by Ms Natalya Antyukh from 30 June 2013 through to and including 31 December 2015 are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.
5. The costs, to be determined and served separately to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne in the proportions 90% (ninety percent) by Ms Natalya Antyukh and 10% (ten percent) by World Athletics.
6. Each Party shall bear its own costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.
7. All other or further requests for relief are hereby dismissed.

Related cases:

• CAS 2022_A_8558 Mohamed Talaat vs FEI
  June 6, 2022
• CAS 2022_A_8569 Sheikh Ali Al Thani vs FEI
  June 2, 2022
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Bassem Mohammed
  December 17, 2021
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Mohamed Talaat
  December 17, 2021
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Sheik Ali Al Thani
  December 17, 2021
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Sheik Ali Al Thani & Bassem Mohammed - Partial Decision
  February 15, 2020
  
  

On 17 December 2021 the Tribunal of the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) decided to impose a fine and a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Qatari rider Bassem Mohammed after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold (2955 ng/mL).

In first instance the FEI Tribunal concluded that the Athlete's explanation, that unknowing exposure to Cannabis during his residence in Morocco through sabotage had caused the positive test, is merely speculative as no corroborating evidence was ever produced during the proceedings.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the FEI Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). CAS partially upheld the decisions of the FEI Tribunal, decided to reduce the imposed period of ineligibility and to backdate the suspension period.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 June 2022 that:

1. The appeal filed on 4 January 2022 by Mr Bassem Mohammed against the Federation Equestre lnternationale (FEI) with respect to the decision taken by the Tribunal of the FEI on 17 December 2021 is partially upheld.
2. The Decision rendered by the Tribunal of the FEI on 17 December 2021 is confirmed save for the item 2) a), which is so amended:
   

   "2.) The Athlete shall incur:
   a.) a period of ineligibility of two (2) years. The period of ineligibility will be effective from 13 October 2019 until 12 October 2021. All competitive results achieved by the Athlete during the period of ineligibility are disqualified"

3. The Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Mr Bassem Mohammed, which is retained by the CAS.
4. Each Party shall bear its own expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
5. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Related cases:

• CAS 2022_A_8558 Mohamed Talaat vs FEI
  June 2, 2022
• CAS 2022_A_8570 Bassem Mohammed vs FEI
  June 2, 2022
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Sheik Ali Al Thani
  December 17, 2021
• FEI 202 FEI vs Bassem Mohammed
  December 17, 2021
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Mohamed Talaat
  December 17, 2021
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Sheik Ali Al Thani & Bassem Mohammed - Partial Decision
  February 15, 2020
  
  

On 17 December 2021 the Tribunal of the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) decided to impose a fine and a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Qatari rider Sheik Ali Al Thani after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold (404 ng/mL).

In first instance the FEI Tribunal concluded that the Athlete's explanation, that unknowing exposure to Cannabis during his residence in Morocco through sabotage had caused the positive test, is merely speculative as no corroborating evidence was ever produced during the proceedings.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the FEI Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). CAS partially upheld the decisions of the FEI Tribunal, decided to reduce the imposed period of ineligibility and to backdate the suspension period.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 June 2022 that:

1. The appeal filed on 4 January 2022 by Mr Sheikh Ali Al Thani against the Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI) with respect to the decision taken by the Tribunal of the
   FEI on 17 December 2021 is partially upheld.
2. The operative part of the decision rendered by the Tribunal of the FEI on 17 December 2021 is confirmed save for the item 2) a), which is so amended:
   

   "2.) The Athlete shall incur:
   a.) a period of ineligibility of one (1) year. The period of ineligibility will be effective fi'om 13 October 2019 until 12 October 2020. All competitive results achieved by the Athlete during the period of ineligibility are disqualified."

3. The Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Mr Sheikh Ali Al Thani, which is retained by the
   CAS.
4. Each Party shall bear its own expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
5. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Related cases:

• CAS 2022_A_8569 Sheikh Ali Al Thani vs FEI
  June 2, 2022
• CAS 2022_A_8570 Bassem Mohammed vs FEI
  June 2, 2022
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Bassem Mohammed
  December 17, 2021
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Mohamed Talaat
  December 17, 2021
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Sheik Ali Al Thani
  December 17, 2021
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Sheik Ali Al Thani & Bassem Mohammed - Partial Decision
  February 15, 2020
  
  
  

On 17 December 2021 the Tribunal of the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) decided to impose a fine and a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Egyptian rider Mohamed Talaat after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold (608 ng/mL).

In first instance the FEI Tribunal concluded that the Athlete's explanation, that unknowing exposure to Cannabis during his residence in Morocco through sabotage had caused the positive test, is merely speculative as no corroborating evidence was ever produced during the proceedings.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the FEI Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). CAS partially upheld the decisions of the FEI Tribunal, decided to reduce the imposed period of ineligibility and to backdate the suspension period.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 June 2022 that:

1. The appeal filed on 7 January 2022 by Mr Mohamed Talaat against the Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI) with respect to the decision taken by the Tribunal of the FEI on
   17 December 2021 is partially upheld.
2. The operative part of the decision rendered by the Tribunal of the FEI on 17 December 2021 is confomed save for the item 2) a), which is so amended:
   

   "2.) The Athlete shall incur:
   a.) a period of ineligibility of one (1) year. The period of ineligibility will be effective from 17 June 2021. All competitive results achieved by the Athlete during the period of ineligibility are disqualified."

3. The Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Mr Mohamed Talaat, which is retained by the CAS.
4. Each Party shall bear its own expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
5. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2015/A/3977 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Belarus Athletic Federation (BAF) & Vadim Devyatovskiy

Related cases:

• CAS 2009_A_1752 Vadim Devyatovskiy & Ivan Tsikhan v IOC
  June 10, 2010
• IOC 2008 IOC vs Vadim Devyatovskiy
  December 11, 2008
  
  

• Athletics (hammer throw)
• Doping (oxandrolone; methandienone)
• Admissibility of the appeal
• Right to attend and/or to be represented at the opening and analysis of the B sample
• Absence of proof of a “use violation” rule

1. There is no obligation foreseen in the applicable IAAF Rules for WADA to know or to make some inquiries about an appealed decision in order to preserve its own right to appeal. Furthermore, the fact that WADA might have discussed the athlete’s case before receiving the complete file does not initiate the 21-day time limit to file the appeal. According to the applicable regulations, this deadline starts running only after the reception of the complete file. Moreover, the fact that WADA received the complete file in a maximum of 13 days after it was aware of its existence cannot be regarded as incompatible with procedural fairness or in breach of any procedural rights of the athlete so as to require the abridgement of the appeal period provided by the rules. Finally, the fact that at some stage of the proceedings, WADA relied on a member of the IAAF to obtain evidence or information does not yet mean that it was acting as the agent of the international federation and does not prove that WADA was acting exclusively for the benefit of IAAF and hence committed somehow an abuse of process by filing its appeal within the regulatory deadline.

2. The generally recognised legal principle that a party may be present at the collection of evidence applies in the context of a confirmatory analysis and is respected only if the athlete is actually put in a position where he can effectively be present or represented by the person of his choosing at the B sample test. This right is fundamental and, if not respected, the B sample result must be disregarded. The fact that the athlete eventually agreed to be represented does not yet mean that he waived his right to be given a reasonable opportunity to be present or represented by the expert of his choosing at the B sample analysis. This very limited right arises from the obligation on the federation to observe the principles of a fair procedure and the right to be heard, as well as the right of proper defence. Given the seriousness of an allegation of doping, it is clear that strict requirements for proper respect of theses procedural principles must be applied. This is so, even if denial of that right is unlikely to affect the result of a B sample analysis.

3. While there may well be cases where analytical evidence which does not meet the criteria to support a “presence violation” can be an important ingredient in establishing a “use violation” case, there must be additional supporting evidence rather than mere speculation. In this respect, speculation regarding a doping conspiracy organised at the national level by the federation and/or that the athlete took part in it, if accepted, would not be sufficient to establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel a “use violation” on the part of the athlete.

Mr Vadim Devyatovskiy is a Belarussian Athlete competing in the Hammer Throw event at the 2005 Helsinki IAAF World Championships. He retired in 2012 and is currently President of the Belarus Athletic Federation (BAF).

Previously the Athlete was sanctioned after he tested positive at the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. He again tested positive at the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Yet this case against the Athlete was annuled (CAS 2009/A/1752) due to departures of the ISL had been established.

In July 2012, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2005 IAAF World Championships. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2005.

In July 2012 the Lausanne Lab reported that the samples of 5 Belarussian athletes - including the Athlete Vadim Devyatovskiy - tested positive for prohibited substances. Consequently 4 Belarussian athletes have been sanctioned with various periods of ineligibility, running from a two year to a life ban.

Accordingly in July 2012 the IAAF reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after reanalysis of his 2005 A and B samples had revealed the presence of the prohibited substances Metandienone and Oxandrolone.

However on 23 September 2014 the BAF Disciplinary Commission deemed that no anti-doping rule violation had been established on the fact that the Athlete was not given opportunity to attend the opening and testing of his B1 sample in July 2012 and he was not given opportunity to be represented the opening and testing of his B1 sample by a representative of his choosing.

Hereafter in March 2015 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the BAF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose an 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his second anti-doping rule violation.

WADA contended that the presence of prohibited substances in the Athlete’s sample was established and confirmed by the analysis of by the B1 and B2 samples. The Athlete contended that the B samples result must be disregarded as he was not offered the right to attend and/or to be represented by the person of his choosing for the opening and testing of his B sample, in violation of Rule 37.7 of the 2012 IAAF ADR and of Article 5.2.4.3.2.6 of the 2012 ISL.

Given the totality of the circumstances, the Panel is comfortably satisfied that, on the evening of 30 July 2012, the Athlete accepted to be represented by Mr. Sergey Beliaev at the splitting of the B sample and analysis of the First Bottle in the Lausanne Lab.

However, the fact that the Athlete eventually agreed to be represented by Mr Sergey Beliaev does not yet mean that he waived his right to be given a reasonable opportunity to be present or represented by the expert of his choosing at the B Sample analysis.

In conclusion, the Panel finds that the Athlete was denied any reasonable opportunity to exercise his right to attend or to be represented at the opening and splitting of his B sample  and analysis of his First Bottle. Such a right is fundamental and, if not respected, the B sample result must be disregarded.

In other words, WADA is unable to establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in the Athlete’s samples so as to found a finding of a “presence violation” under Rule 32.2(a) IAAF ADR.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 31 March 2016:

1.) The appeal filed on 11 March 2015 by WADA against the decision of the BAF Disciplinary Commission dated 23 September 2014 is dismissed.

2.) The decision of the BAF Disciplinary Commission dated 23 September 2014 is confirmed.
(…)

6.) All other or further requests and prayers of relief are dismissed.

CAS OG 22/11 Evan Bates, Karen Chen, Nathan Chen, Madison Chock, Zachary Donohue, Brandon Frazier, Madison Hubbell, Alexa Knierim, and Vincent Zhou vs International Olympic Committee (IOC)

Related case:

CAS OG_2022_08 IOC, WADA, ISU vs RUSADA, Kamila Valieva & ROC
February 17, 2022

Evan Bates, Karen Chen, Nathan Chen, Madison Chock, Zachary Donohue, Brandon Frazier, Madison Hubbell, Alexa Knierim and Vincent Zhou are members of the United States Figur Skating Team who placed second in the Figure Skating Team Event at the 2022 Beijing Olympic Winter Games.

In February 2022 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva (15) after her sample, collected on 25 December 2025, tested positive for the prohibited substance Trimetazidine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered on 8 February 2022 and consequently the Athlete was prohibited from participation in the 2022 Beijing Olympic Games.

Yet the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) decided on 9 February 2022 to lift the Athlete's provisional suspension as it established that under the Russian ADR and the WADC 2021 the minor Athlete is a Protected Person.

On 14 February 2022, the CAS Ad Hoc Division dismissed all three applications in the consolidated proceedings (CAS OG 22/8-22/9-22/10). The Panel deemed that the Athlete has the status of a protected person and that the Provisional Suspension in question should remain lifted whether or not the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.

On 14 February 2022 the IOC decided In the interest of fairness to all athletes and the NOCs concerned, it would not be appropriate to hold the medal ceremony for the figure skating team event during the Beijing Olympic Winter Games as it would include an athlete who on the one hand has a positive A-sample, but whose violation of the anti-doping rules has not yet been established on the other hand.

After deliberations with the IOC about the postponement of the medal ceremony the members of the United States Figure Skating Team appealed the IOC Decision of 14 February 2022 with the CAS AD Hoc Division.

The Applicants argued that they are innocent bystanders and completely uninvolved in the ongoing doping case related to the Athlete and the Olympic Figure Skating Team Event. The Applicants earned their second place in the Figure Skating Team Event and they cannot be deprive of being awarde their silver medals in a publice ceremony.

Accordingly the Applicants requested that the IOC be ordered to present to them the silver medals in a public ceremony to be held prior to the close of the Winter Olympic Games.

In this case the Panel finds that the Appealed Decision was neither abusive nor arbitrary, nor does the Panel find that the IOC exceeded its powers. Also the Panel fully understands the interests of the Applicants in having medals awarde to them in public during the Games.

However, and as confirmed during the hearing, none of the Parties ever expected a situation like the one at hand to arise, which is why the Panel finds no legal basis for concluding that the Appealed Decision did in fact breach any legal rights of the Applicants.

The Panel recognises the sole discretion of the IOC to decide on issues regarding, inter alia, the medal ceremonies as set out in Rule 56 of the Olympic Charter.

As such, and based on the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds no legal basis for ordering the IOC to organise a medal ceremony for the Figure Skating Team Event during the Olympic Winter Games. Consequently, the Applicants’ Application of 18 February 2022 is therefore dismissed and the Appealed Decision stands.

Therefore the Ad Hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 March 2022 that:

The Application filed by Evan Bates, Karen Chen, Nathan Chen, Madison Chock, Zachary Donohue, Brandon Frazier, Madison Hubbell, Alexa Knierim and Vincent Zhou is dismissed.