Welcome

Welcome to Doping.nl, the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center.
This site has been established to host information about doping in the broadest sense of the word, and about doping prevention.

Initiator
The Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands (the Dutch Doping Authority for short) established this site and maintains it. The Doping Authority was founded in 1989 and it is one of the oldest NADOs in the world. Doping.nl was developed with financial support from the Dutch Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sport.

Goals
This website  was established because of the importance that the Doping Authority and the Ministry attach to the dissemination of information relevant to doping prevention. Disclosing and supplying relevant information is one of the cornerstones in the fight against doping in sport. However, in practice, a significant amount of information is still not available, or only available to a limited group of users. We therefore decided to bring together all the relevant information in a single site: Doping.nl.

Activities
The Doping Authority aims to supply as much information through this website as possible on an ongoing basis. The information will be varied but will focus primarily on: WADA documents like the World Anti-Doping Code, the International Standards like the Prohibited List, Doping Regulations, scientific articles and abstracts, decisions by disciplinary bodies (mainly CAS decisions).As well as making documents available, the Doping Authority aims to supply searchable documents when possible, and to add relevant keywords to ensure easy access.
In the future, Doping.nl will also become a digital archive containing older information that is no longer available elsewhere.

Target readers
This site has been designed for use by anti-doping professionals such as National Anti-Doping Organisations and International Federations but also for students, journalists and other people interested in the subject.

Register
To use the lightbox option, you need to register.

More information explaining how to use this website can be found under "help".

Recently added documents More »

CAS 2017_A_5474 Inna Dyubanok vs IOC

CAS 2017/A/5474 Inna Dyubanok v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) Related case: IOC 2017 IOC vs Inna Dyubanok - Operative Part December 11, 2017 Ice Hockey Doping (use of a prohibited substance or method; tampering with doping control; cover-up of and complicity in the commission of an ADRV) Standard of proof in general Standard of proof with regard to the alleged doping scheme Means of proof Liability of the athlete in case of substitution of the content of his/her sample Elevated urinary sodium concentrations Use of a prohibited method Use of a prohibited substance Tampering with any part of doping control Administration of a prohibited method or substance to an athlete Cover-up of or complicity in the commission of an ADRV Appropriate length of the Olympic ineligibility _________________________________________________ Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof. Richard McLaren as Independent Person (IP) on 18 July 2016 and 9 December 2016, showed detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected during the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IP reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample. As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. At the same time the IOC Schmid Commission started their investigations to establish the facts on the basis of documented, independent and impartial evidence. All the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establishes whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated. The findings in the IP Reports were considered in detail and both Commissions conclude that samples or urine collected from Russian Athletes were tampered with in Sochi in a systematic manner and as part of an organized scheme. The Commissions further conclude that it was not possible that the athletes were not fully implicated. They were also the main beneficiaries of the scheme. The IOC Commissions find that Prof. McLaren’s findings are not only based on the evidence provided by Dr Rodchenkov in his interviews, but on a wealth of other corroborating evidence, including other witnesses, the forensic examination of the sample bottles, the evidence showing abnormal salt results and the additional elements coming from DNA analysis. The corroborating evidence considered by Prof. McLaren included further objective elements, such as e-mails confirming that athletes were protected through different methods. ________________________________________________ Inna Dyubanok is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women's Ice Hockey Event at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. In October 2017 the IOC Disciplinary Commission has reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for tampering, conspiracy and use of prohibited substances. Consequently the IOC Disciplinary Commission decided on 11 December 2017 to declare Inna Dyubanok ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games. Further the Commission disqualified the Athlete and her Team from the events at the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games including forfeiture of any medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes. ________________________________________________ In December 2017 the Athlete Inna Dyubanok appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). A total of 42 cases were filed with CAS by Russian athletes (the Sochi Appellants) against the decisions taken by the IOC Disciplinary Commission in relation to the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games. The Athlete and other Sochi Appellants submitted that the IOC Disciplinary Commission fundamentally erred in its application of the relevant legal framework to the facts of the Sochi Appellants’ cases. In particular, rather than seeking to determine whether the specific requirements set out in the relevant provisions of the WADC have been made out in individual cases, the IOC Commission took a generic and “broad brush approach” to its assessment of the evidence. It proceeded from a foregone conclusion and applied assumptions and circular inferential reasoning to reach its ultimate conclusion that the Sochi Appellants were each guilty of ADRVs. The Sochi Appellants disputed the reliability of the filed evidence provided by the IOC, Prof. McLaren and Dr. Rodchenko and pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence. The IOC, in its written submissions, provided a detailed description of the doping and cover-up scheme that allegedly operated in Russia from 2011 to 2015. The IOC contended that the McLaren Reports and the Schmid Report both identified the Disappearing Positive Methodology as the origin of the institutionalised doping and cover-up scheme while Dr. Rodchenkov identified the main aspects to the Disappearing Positive Methodology in his affidavits. With regard to the Athlete’s implication in this scheme, the IOC asserted that: - The Athlete’s B sample bottle had multiple T marks, i.e. evidence of tampering. - The Athlete’s A and B sample bottles had an “abnormal level of sodium”, which indicated that the sample gravity was adjusted by the addition of salt during the swapping process. - The Athlete’s implication in the doping scheme was also demonstrated by the evidence of Dr. Rodchenkov. Having thoroughly considered the submissions of the Parties, the written evidence and the oral evidence and testimonies provided at the six-day hearing, the Panel finds that the Athlete committed ADRVs in the form of the use of a prohibited method, i.e. urine substitution, pursuant to Article 2.2 of the WADC in connection with M2.1 of the 2014 WADA Prohibited List, and in the form of use of a prohibited substance under Article 2.2 of the WADC. The Panel was unable to find the commission of either an ADRV in the form of tampering with doping control in accordance with Article 2.5 of the WADC or an ADRV in the form of cover-up of or complicity in an ADRV under Article 2.8 of the WADC. In reaching these conclusions, the Panel wishes to underscore what it has not decided in this appeal. The Panel has not made a ruling on whether and to what extent the alleged doping scheme during the Sochi Games existed and how it operated even though it recognizes that there is significant evidence that it was in place and worked. Moreover, the Panel did not consider it possible to conclude that the mere existence of a general doping and cover-up scheme, even if established, would inexorably lead to a conclusion that the Athlete committed the ADRVs alleged by the IOC. What the Panel, in the appeal of an individual Athlete against the findings of various ADRVs by inference from the alleged doping and cover-up scheme, did decide is simply that for all of the reasons set out in this award, the evidence presented before the Panel only justified the conclusion to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that the Athlete individually committed ADRVs in violation of Article 2.2 of the WADC. Based on the finding of two individual ADRVs committed by the Athlete, the Panel concludes that the imposition of a lifetime ineligibility to participate in whatever capacity in Olympic Winter Games as well as in Games of the Olympiad is not appropriate in relation to the seriousness of the individual ADRVs and, therefore, declares the Athlete ineligible to participate in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games, i.e. the Winter Games in PyeongChang 2018. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 February 2018 that: 1.) The Appeal filed by Inna Dyubanok on 19 December 2017 against the Decision of the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 11 December 2017 is partially upheld. 2.) Paragraph I(a) of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 11 December 2017 is modified as follows: I. The Athlete, Inna DYUBANOK: a) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, in connection with the World Anti-Doping Code. 3.) Paragraph IV of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 11 December 2017 is annulled and replaced as follows: IV. Inna DYUBANOK is declared ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games (i.e. PyeongChang 2018). 4.) All other rulings contained in the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 11 December 2017 are maintained. 5.) This Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Inna Dyubanok, which is retained by the CAS. 6.) Each party shall bear their own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration. 7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2017_A_5471 Anna Shibanova vs IOC

CAS 2017/A/5471 Anna Shibanova v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) Related cases: IOC 2017 IOC vs Anna Shibanova - Decision December 26, 2017 IOC 2017 IOC vs Anna Shibanova - Operative Part December 11, 2017 Ice Hockey Doping (use of a prohibited substance or method; tampering with doping control; cover-up of and complicity in the commission of an ADRV) Standard of proof in general Standard of proof with regard to the alleged doping scheme Means of proof Liability of the athlete in case of substitution of the content of his/her sample Elevated urinary sodium concentrations Use of a prohibited method Use of a prohibited substance Tampering with any part of doping control Administration of a prohibited method or substance to an athlete Cover-up of or complicity in the commission of an ADRV Appropriate length of the Olympic ineligibility _________________________________________________ Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof. Richard McLaren as Independent Person (IP) on 18 July 2016 and 9 December 2016, showed detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected during the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IP reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample. As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. At the same time the IOC Schmid Commission started their investigations to establish the facts on the basis of documented, independent and impartial evidence. All the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establishes whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated. The findings in the IP Reports were considered in detail and both Commissions conclude that samples or urine collected from Russian Athletes were tampered with in Sochi in a systematic manner and as part of an organized scheme. The Commissions further conclude that it was not possible that the athletes were not fully implicated. They were also the main beneficiaries of the scheme. The IOC Commissions find that Prof. McLaren’s findings are not only based on the evidence provided by Dr Rodchenkov in his interviews, but on a wealth of other corroborating evidence, including other witnesses, the forensic examination of the sample bottles, the evidence showing abnormal salt results and the additional elements coming from DNA analysis. The corroborating evidence considered by Prof. McLaren included further objective elements, such as e-mails confirming that athletes were protected through different methods. ________________________________________________ Anna Shibanova is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women's Ice Hockey Event at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. In October 2017 the IOC Disciplinary Commission has reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for tampering, conspiracy and use of prohibited substances. Consequently the IOC Disciplinary Commission decided on 26 December 2017 to declare Anna Shibanova ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games. Further the Commission disqualified the Athlete and her Team from the events at the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games including forfeiture of any medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes. ________________________________________________ In December 2017 the Athlete Anna Shibanova appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). A total of 42 cases were filed with CAS by Russian athletes (the Sochi Appellants) against the decisions taken by the IOC Disciplinary Commission in relation to the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games. The Athlete and other Sochi Appellants submitted that the IOC Disciplinary Commission fundamentally erred in its application of the relevant legal framework to the facts of the Sochi Appellants’ cases. In particular, rather than seeking to determine whether the specific requirements set out in the relevant provisions of the WADC have been made out in individual cases, the IOC Commission took a generic and “broad brush approach” to its assessment of the evidence. It proceeded from a foregone conclusion and applied assumptions and circular inferential reasoning to reach its ultimate conclusion that the Sochi Appellants were each guilty of ADRVs. The Sochi Appellants disputed the reliability of the filed evidence provided by the IOC, Prof. McLaren and Dr. Rodchenko and pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence. The IOC, in its written submissions, provided a detailed description of the doping and cover-up scheme that allegedly operated in Russia from 2011 to 2015. The IOC contended that the McLaren Reports and the Schmid Report both identified the Disappearing Positive Methodology as the origin of the institutionalised doping and cover-up scheme while Dr. Rodchenkov identified the main aspects to the Disappearing Positive Methodology in his affidavits. With regard to the Athlete’s implication in this scheme, the IOC asserted that: - Multiple T marks were found on the Athlete’s B sample bottle of 2 samples. - The A and B bottles of both of the Athlete’s samples were found to have “abnormally high” sodium levels, which strongly suggested manipulation of the sample. - The DNA analysis of the Athlete’s sample showed “that the main female DNA profile was mixed with a profile coming from three male contributors”. - Furthermore, the IOC stated that contamination of the sample bottles during the carefully monitored collection process is highly unlikely in light of the “potential quantity of foreign DNA” and the existence of multiple contributors. - The Athlete’s implication in the doping scheme was also demonstrated by the evidence of Dr. Rodchenkov. Having thoroughly considered the submissions of the Parties, the written evidence as well as the oral evidence and testimonies provided at the six-day hearing, the Panel finds that the Athlete committed ADRVs in the form of the use of a prohibited method, i.e. urine substitution, pursuant to Article 2.2 of the WADC in connection with M2.1 of the 2014 WADA Prohibited List, and in the form of use of a prohibited substance under Article 2.2 of the WADC. The Panel was unable to find the commission of either an ADRV in the form of tampering with doping control in accordance with Article 2.5 of the WADC or an ADRV in the form of cover-up of or complicity in an ADRV under Article 2.8 of the WADC. In reaching these conclusions, the Panel wishes to underscore what it has not decided in this appeal. The Panel has not made a ruling on whether and to what extent the alleged doping scheme during the Sochi Games existed and how it operated even though it recognizes that there is significant evidence that it was in place and worked. Moreover, the Panel did not consider it possible to conclude that the mere existence of a general doping and cover-up scheme, even if established, would inexorably lead to a conclusion that the Athlete committed the ADRVs alleged by the IOC. What the Panel, in the appeal of an individual Athlete against the findings of various ADRVs by inference from the alleged doping and cover-up scheme, did decide is simply that for all of the reasons set out in this award, the evidence presented before the Panel only justified the conclusion to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that the Athlete individually committed ADRVs in violation of Article 2.2 of the WADC. Based on the finding of two individual ADRVs committed by the Athlete, the Panel concludes that the imposition of a lifetime ineligibility to participate in whatever capacity in Olympic Winter Games as well as in Games of the Olympiad is not appropriate in relation to the seriousness of the individual ADRVs and, therefore, declares the Athlete ineligible to participate in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games, i.e. the Winter Games in PyeongChang 2018. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 February 2018 that: 1.) The Appeal filed by Anna Shibanova on 19 December 2017 against the Decision of the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 11 December 2017 (and confirmed by the reasoned decision on 26 December 2017) is partially upheld. 2.) Paragraph I(a) of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 11 December 2017 (and confirmed by the reasoned decision on 26 December 2017) is modified as follows: I. The Athlete, Anna SHIBANOVA: a) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, in connection with the World Anti-Doping Code. 3.) Paragraph IV of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 11 December 2017 (and confirmed by the reasoned decision on 26 December 2017) is annulled and replaced as follows: IV. Anna SHIBANOVA is declared ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games (i.e. PyeongChang 2018). 4.) All other rulings contained in the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 11 December 2017 (and confirmed by the reasoned decision on 26 December 2017) are maintained. 5.)This Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Anna Shibanova, which is retained by the CAS. 6.) Each party shall bear their own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration. 7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2017_A_5470 Galina Skiba vs IOC

CAS 2017/A/5470 Galina Skiba v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) Related case: IOC 2017 IOC vs Galina Skiba - Operative Part December 11, 2017 Ice Hockey Doping (use of a prohibited substance or method; tampering with doping control; cover-up of and complicity in the commission of an ADRV) Standard of proof in general Standard of proof with regard to the alleged doping scheme Means of proof Liability of the athlete in case of substitution of the content of his/her sample Elevated urinary sodium concentrations Use of a prohibited method Use of a prohibited substance Tampering with any part of doping control Administration of a prohibited method or substance to an athlete Cover-up of or complicity in the commission of an ADRV Appropriate length of the Olympic ineligibility _________________________________________________ Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof. Richard McLaren as Independent Person (IP) on 18 July 2016 and 9 December 2016, showed detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected during the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IP reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample. As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. At the same time the IOC Schmid Commission started their investigations to establish the facts on the basis of documented, independent and impartial evidence. All the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establishes whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated. The findings in the IP Reports were considered in detail and both Commissions conclude that samples or urine collected from Russian Athletes were tampered with in Sochi in a systematic manner and as part of an organized scheme. The Commissions further conclude that it was not possible that the athletes were not fully implicated. They were also the main beneficiaries of the scheme. The IOC Commissions find that Prof. McLaren’s findings are not only based on the evidence provided by Dr Rodchenkov in his interviews, but on a wealth of other corroborating evidence, including other witnesses, the forensic examination of the sample bottles, the evidence showing abnormal salt results and the additional elements coming from DNA analysis. The corroborating evidence considered by Prof. McLaren included further objective elements, such as e-mails confirming that athletes were protected through different methods. ________________________________________________ Galina Skiba is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women's Ice Hockey Event at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. In October 2017 the IOC Disciplinary Commission has reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for tampering, conspiracy and use of prohibited substances. Consequently the IOC Disciplinary Commission decided on 11 December 2017 to declare Galina Skiba ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games. Further the Commission disqualified the Athlete and her Team from the events at the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games including forfeiture of any medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes. ________________________________________________ In December 2017 the Athlete Galina Skiba appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). A total of 42 cases were filed with CAS by Russian athletes (the Sochi Appellants) against the decisions taken by the IOC Disciplinary Commission in relation to the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games. The Athlete and other Sochi Appellants submitted that the IOC Disciplinary Commission fundamentally erred in its application of the relevant legal framework to the facts of the Sochi Appellants’ cases. In particular, rather than seeking to determine whether the specific requirements set out in the relevant provisions of the WADC have been made out in individual cases, the IOC Commission took a generic and “broad brush approach” to its assessment of the evidence. It proceeded from a foregone conclusion and applied assumptions and circular inferential reasoning to reach its ultimate conclusion that the Sochi Appellants were each guilty of ADRVs. The Sochi Appellants disputed the reliability of the filed evidence provided by the IOC, Prof. McLaren and Dr. Rodchenko and pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence. The IOC, in its written submissions, provided a detailed description of the doping and cover-up scheme that allegedly operated in Russia from 2011 to 2015. The IOC contended that the McLaren Reports and the Schmid Report both identified the Disappearing Positive Methodology as the origin of the institutionalised doping and cover-up scheme while Dr. Rodchenkov identified the main aspects to the Disappearing Positive Methodology in his affidavits. With regard to the Athlete’s implication in this scheme, the IOC asserted that: - The urine in the Athlete’s A and B sample bottles “had an abnormal level of salt, indicating that the sample gravity was adjusted through the addition of salt, as this was done during the swapping process, when required”. According to the IOC, such a high level of sodium is “per se sufficient evidence of tampering”. - In addition, the Athlete’s B sample bottle was found to bear one or more isolated T marks, which “adds to the strength of the evidence supporting the fact that Ms Skiba was implicated in the scheme and had her samples swapped”. - The Athlete’s implication in the doping scheme was also demonstrated by the evidence of Dr. Rodchenkov. Having thoroughly considered the submissions of the Parties, the written evidence and the oral evidence and testimonies provided at the six-day hearing, the Panel finds that the Athlete committed ADRVs in the form of the use of a prohibited method, i.e. urine substitution, pursuant to Article 2.2 of the WADC in connection with M2.1 of the 2014 WADA Prohibited List, and in the form of use of a prohibited substance under Article 2.2 of the WADC. The Panel was unable to find the commission of either an ADRV in the form of tampering with doping control in accordance with Article 2.5 of the WADC or an ADRV in the form of cover-up of or complicity in an ADRV under Article 2.8 of the WADC. In reaching these conclusions, the Panel wishes to underscore what it has not decided in this appeal. The Panel has not made a ruling on whether and to what extent the alleged doping scheme during the Sochi Games existed and how it operated even though it recognizes that there is significant evidence that it was in place and worked. Moreover, the Panel did not consider it possible to conclude that the mere existence of a general doping and cover-up scheme, even if established, would inexorably lead to a conclusion that the Athlete committed the ADRVs alleged by the IOC. What the Panel, in the appeal of an individual Athlete against the findings of various ADRVs by inference from the alleged doping and cover-up scheme, did decide is simply that for all of the reasons set out in this award, the evidence presented before the Panel only justified the conclusion to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that the Athlete individually committed ADRVs in violation of Article 2.2 of the WADC. Based on the finding of two individual ADRVs committed by the Athlete, the Panel concludes that the imposition of a lifetime ineligibility to participate in whatever capacity in Olympic Winter Games as well as in Games of the Olympiad is not appropriate in relation to the seriousness of the individual ADRVs and, therefore, declares the Athlete ineligible to participate in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games, i.e. the Winter Games in PyeongChang 2018. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 February 2018 that: 1.) The Appeal filed by Galina Skiba on 19 December 2017 against the Decision of the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 11 December 2017 is partially upheld. 2.) Paragraph I(a) of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 18 December 2017 is modified as follows: I. The Athlete, Galina SKIBA: a) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, in connection with the World Anti-Doping Code. 3.) Paragraph IV of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 11 December 2017 is annulled and replaced as follows: IV. Galina SKIBA is declared ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games (i.e. PyeongChang 2018). 4.) All other rulings contained in the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 11 December 2017 are maintained. 5.) This Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Galina Skiba, which is retained by the CAS. 6.) Each party shall bear their own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration. 7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2017_A_5468 Alexey Voevoda vs IOC

CAS 2017/A/5468 Alexey Voevoda v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) Related case: IOC 2017 IOC vs Alexey Voevoda - Operative Part December 18, 2017 Bobsleigh Doping (use of a prohibited substance or method; tampering with doping control; cover-up of and complicity in the commission of an ADRV) Standard of proof in general Standard of proof with regard to the alleged doping scheme Means of proof Liability of the athlete in case of substitution of the content of his/her sample Elevated urinary sodium concentrations Use of a prohibited method Use of a prohibited substance Tampering with any part of doping control Administration of a prohibited method or substance to an athlete Cover-up of or complicity in the commission of an ADRV Consequences to the team of the disqualification of a team member’s individual results Appropriate length of the Olympic ineligibility _________________________________________________ Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof. Richard McLaren as Independent Person (IP) on 18 July 2016 and 9 December 2016, showed detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected during the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IP reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample. As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. At the same time the IOC Schmid Commission started their investigations to establish the facts on the basis of documented, independent and impartial evidence. All the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establishes whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated. The findings in the IP Reports were considered in detail and both Commissions conclude that samples or urine collected from Russian Athletes were tampered with in Sochi in a systematic manner and as part of an organized scheme. The Commissions further conclude that it was not possible that the athletes were not fully implicated. They were also the main beneficiaries of the scheme. The IOC Commissions find that Prof. McLaren’s findings are not only based on the evidence provided by Dr Rodchenkov in his interviews, but on a wealth of other corroborating evidence, including other witnesses, the forensic examination of the sample bottles, the evidence showing abnormal salt results and the additional elements coming from DNA analysis. The corroborating evidence considered by Prof. McLaren included further objective elements, such as e-mails confirming that athletes were protected through different methods. ________________________________________________ Alexey Voevoda is a Russian Athlete competing in the Men's Bobsleigh Event at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. In December 2016 the IOC Disciplinary Commission has reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for tampering, conspiracy and use of prohibited substances. Consequently the IOC Disciplinary Commission decided on 18 December 2017 to declare Alexey Voevoda ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games. Further the Commission disqualified the Athlete and his Team from the events at the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games including forfeiture of any medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes. ________________________________________________ In December 2017 the Athlete Alexey Voevoda appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). A total of 42 cases were filed with CAS by Russian athletes (the Sochi Appellants) against the decisions taken by the IOC Disciplinary Commission in relation to the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games. The Athlete and other Sochi Appellants submitted that the IOC Disciplinary Commission fundamentally erred in its application of the relevant legal framework to the facts of the Sochi Appellants’ cases. In particular, rather than seeking to determine whether the specific requirements set out in the relevant provisions of the WADC have been made out in individual cases, the IOC Commission took a generic and “broad brush approach” to its assessment of the evidence. It proceeded from a foregone conclusion and applied assumptions and circular inferential reasoning to reach its ultimate conclusion that the Sochi Appellants were each guilty of ADRVs. The Sochi Appellants disputed the reliability of the filed evidence provided by the IOC, Professor McLaren and Dr Rodchenko and pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence. The IOC, in its written submissions, provided a detailed description of the doping and cover-up scheme that allegedly operated in Russia from 2011 to 2015. The IOC contended that the McLaren Reports and the Schmid Report both identified the Disappearing Positive Methodology as the origin of the institutionalised doping and cover-up scheme while Dr. Rodchenkov identified the main aspects to the Disappearing Positive Methodology in his affidavits. With regard to the Athlete’s implication in this scheme, the IOC asserted that: - His name appeared on the Duchess List. - All eight athletes participating in the Russian Men’s Bobsleigh Teams had samples from the Sochi Games with direct evidence of tampering; out of 15 samples: (a) 10 had multiple T marks; and (b) five had abnormal sodium content. - In addition, there was direct evidence of tampering (in the form of multiple T marks) of samples provided by two members of the Russian Women’s Bobsleigh Team. - Accordingly, it had been established that “the members of the Russian National Bobsleigh Team were directly implicated in the scheme”. - The urine found in the A and B sample bottles of one of the Athlete’s samples provided at the Sochi Games “had an abnormal level of salt, indicating that the sample gravity was adjusted through the addition of salt, as this was done during the swapping process, when required”. - The Athlete’s implication in the doping scheme was also demonstrated by the evidence of Dr. Rodchenkov. Having thoroughly considered the submissions of the Parties, the written evidence as well as the oral evidence and testimonies provided at the six-day hearing, the Panel finds that the Athlete committed ADRVs in the form of the use of a prohibited method, i.e. urine substitution, pursuant to Article 2.2 of the WADC in connection with M2.1 of the 2014 WADA Prohibited List, and in the form of use of a prohibited substance under Article 2.2 of the WADC. The Panel was unable to find the commission of either an ADRV in the form of tampering with doping control in accordance with Article 2.5 of the WADC or an ADRV in the form of cover-up of or complicity in an ADRV under Article 2.8 of the WADC. In reaching these conclusions, the Panel wishes to underscore what it has not decided in this appeal. The Panel has not made a ruling on whether and to what extent the alleged doping scheme during the Sochi Games existed and how it operated even though it recognizes that there is significant evidence that it was in place and worked. Moreover, the Panel did not consider it possible to conclude that the mere existence of a general doping and cover-up scheme, even if established, would inexorably lead to a conclusion that the Athlete committed the ADRVs alleged by the IOC. What the Panel, in the appeal of an individual Athlete against the findings of various ADRVs by inference from the alleged doping and cover-up scheme, did decide is simply that for all of the reasons set out in this award, the evidence presented before the Panel only justified the conclusion to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that the Athlete individually committed ADRVs in violation of Article 2.2 of the WADC. Based on the finding of two individual ADRVs committed by the Athlete, the Panel concludes that the imposition of a lifetime ineligibility to participate in whatever capacity in Olympic Winter Games as well as in Games of the Olympiad is not appropriate in relation to the seriousness of the individual ADRVs and, therefore, declares the Athlete ineligible to participate in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games, i.e. the Winter Games in PyeongChang 2018. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 February 2018 that: 1.) The Appeal filed by Alexey Voevoda on 19 December 2017 against the Decision of the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 18 December 2017 is partially upheld. 2.) Paragraph I(a) of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 18 December 2017 is modified as follows: I. The Athlete, Alexey VOEVODA: a) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, in connection with the World Anti-Doping Code. 3.) Paragraph V of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 18 December 2017 is annulled and replaced as follows: V. Alexey VOEVODA is declared ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games (i.e. PyeongChang 2018). 4.) The Russian Team which ranked 1st in the 4-Man Bobsleigh event is disqualified. The corresponding diplomas are withdrawn and shall be returned to the International Olympic Committee. 5.) All other rulings contained in the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 18 December 2017 are maintained. 6.) The award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Alexey Voevoda, which is retained by the CAS. 7.) Each party shall bear their own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration. 8.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2017_A_5446 Anastasia Dotsenko vs IOC

Related case: IOC 2017 IOC vs Anastasia Dotsenko - Operative Part Skiing (cross-country skiing) Doping (use of a prohibited substance or method; tampering with doping control; cover-up of and complicity in the commission of an ADRV) Standard of proof in general Standard of proof with regard to the alleged doping scheme Means of proof Liability of the athlete in case of substitution of the content of his/her sample Elevated urinary sodium concentrations Use of a prohibited method Use of a prohibited substance Tampering with any part of doping control Administration of a prohibited method or substance to an athlete Cover-up of or complicity in the commission of an ADRV Appropriate length of the Olympic ineligibility _________________________________________________ Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof. Richard McLaren as Independent Person (IP) on 18 July 2016 and 9 December 2016, showed detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected during the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IP reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample. As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. At the same time the IOC Schmid Commission started their investigations to establish the facts on the basis of documented, independent and impartial evidence. All the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establishes whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated. The findings in the IP Reports were considered in detail and both Commissions conclude that samples or urine collected from Russian Athletes were tampered with in Sochi in a systematic manner and as part of an organized scheme. The Commissions further conclude that it was not possible that the athletes were not fully implicated. They were also the main beneficiaries of the scheme. The IOC Commissions find that Prof. McLaren’s findings are not only based on the evidence provided by Dr Rodchenkov in his interviews, but on a wealth of other corroborating evidence, including other witnesses, the forensic examination of the sample bottles, the evidence showing abnormal salt results and the additional elements coming from DNA analysis. The corroborating evidence considered by Prof. McLaren included further objective elements, such as e-mails confirming that athletes were protected through different methods. ________________________________________________ Anastasia Dotsenko is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women's Classic Cross Country Skiing Events at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. In October 2017 the IOC Disciplinary Commission has reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for tampering, conspiracy and use of prohibited substances. Consequently the IOC Disciplinary Commission decided on 1 December 2017 to declare Anastasia Dotsenko ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games. Further the Commission disqualified the Athlete and her Team from the events at the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games including forfeiture of any medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes. ________________________________________________ In December 2017 the Anastasia Dotsenko appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). A total of 42 cases were filed with CAS by Russian athletes (the Sochi Appellants) against the decisions taken by the IOC Disciplinary Commission in relation to the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games. The Athlete and other Sochi Appellants submitted that the IOC Disciplinary Commission fundamentally erred in its application of the relevant legal framework to the facts of the Sochi Appellants’ cases. In particular, rather than seeking to determine whether the specific requirements set out in the relevant provisions of the WADC have been made out in individual cases, the IOC Commission took a generic and “broad brush approach” to its assessment of the evidence. It proceeded from a foregone conclusion and applied assumptions and circular inferential reasoning to reach its ultimate conclusion that the Sochi Appellants were each guilty of ADRVs. The Sochi Appellants disputed the reliability of the filed evidence provided by the IOC, Prof. McLaren and Dr. Rodchenko and pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence. The IOC, in its written submissions, provided a detailed description of the doping and cover-up scheme that allegedly operated in Russia from 2011 to 2015. The IOC contended that the McLaren Reports and the Schmid Report both identified the Disappearing Positive Methodology as the origin of the institutionalised doping and cover-up scheme while Dr. Rodchenkov identified the main aspects to the Disappearing Positive Methodology in his affidavits. With regard to the Athlete’s implication in this scheme, the IOC asserted that: - The Athlete’s name appears on the Duchess List. This fact is sufficient in itself to establish that she was a participant in the doping scheme. - Two of the Athlete’s B sample bottles from the Sochi Games was found to contain multiple T marks, which provided strong evidence that the bottle was surreptitiously opened and that the content of the urine sample was swapped. At the same time, the fact that the other B sample bottle did not contain any T marks does not undermine this conclusion; instead, it merely reflects the fact that bottles could be opened without leaving significant marks. - Further, the sample that was found to contain multiple T marks was also found to contain abnormally high levels of sodium. These urinary sodium concentrations were well beyond the range of physiological possibilities and were therefore per se sufficient evidence of tampering. - The Athlete’s implication in the doping scheme was also demonstrated by the evidence of Dr. Rodchenkov. Having thoroughly considered the submissions of the Parties, the written evidence as well as the oral evidence and testimonies provided at the six-day hearing, the Panel finds that the Athlete committed ADRVs in the form of the use of a prohibited method, i.e. urine substitution, pursuant to Article 2.2 of the WADC in connection with M2.1 of the 2014 WADA Prohibited List, and in the form of use of a prohibited substance under Article 2.2 of the WADC. The Panel was unable to find the commission of either an ADRV in the form of tampering with doping control in accordance with Article 2.5 of the WADC or an ADRV in the form of cover-up of or complicity in an ADRV under Article 2.8 of the WADC. In reaching these conclusions, the Panel wishes to underscore what it has not decided in this appeal. The Panel has not made a ruling on whether and to what extent the alleged doping scheme during the Sochi Games existed and how it operated even though it recognizes that there is significant evidence that it was in place and worked. Moreover, the Panel did not consider it possible to conclude that the mere existence of a general doping and cover-up scheme, even if established, would inexorably lead to a conclusion that the Athlete committed the ADRVs alleged by the IOC. What the Panel, in the appeal of an individual Athlete against the findings of various ADRVs by inference from the alleged doping and cover-up scheme, did decide is simply that for all of the reasons set out in this award, the evidence presented before the Panel only justified the conclusion to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that the Athlete individually committed ADRVs in violation of Article 2.2 of the WADC. Based on the finding of two individual ADRVs committed by the Athlete, the Panel concludes that the imposition of a lifetime ineligibility to participate in whatever capacity in Olympic Winter Games as well as in Games of the Olympiad is not appropriate in relation to the seriousness of the individual ADRVs and, therefore, declares the Athlete ineligible to participate in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games, i.e. the Winter Games in PyeongChang 2018. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 February 2018 that: 1.) The Appeal filed by Anastasia Dotsenko on 6 December 2017 against the Decision of the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 1 December 2017 is partially upheld. 2.) Paragraph I(a) of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 1 December 2017 is modified as follows: I. The Athlete, Anastasia DOTSENKO: a) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, in connection with the World Anti-Doping Code. 3.) Paragraph IV of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission 1 December 2017 is annulled and replaced as follows: IV. Anastasia DOTSENKO is declared ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games (i.e. PyeongChang 2018). 4.) All other rulings contained in the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 1 December 2017 are maintained. 5.) This Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Anastasia Dotsenko, which is retained by the CAS. 6.) Each party shall bear their own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration. 7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2017_A_5445 Yulia Chekaleva vs IOC

CAS 2017/A/5445 Yulia Chekaleva v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) Related case: IOC 2017 IOC vs Yulia Chekaleva (Tchekaleva) - Operative Part December 1, 2017 Skiing (cross-country skiing) Doping (use of a prohibited substance or method; tampering with doping control; cover-up of and complicity in the commission of an ADRV) Standard of proof in general Standard of proof with regard to the alleged doping scheme Means of proof Liability of the athlete in case of substitution of the content of his/her sample Elevated urinary sodium concentrations Use of a prohibited method Use of a prohibited substance Tampering with any part of doping control Administration of a prohibited method or substance to an athlete Cover-up of or complicity in the commission of an ADRV Appropriate length of the Olympic ineligibility _________________________________________________ Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof. Richard McLaren as Independent Person (IP) on 18 July 2016 and 9 December 2016, showed detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected during the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IP reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample. As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. At the same time the IOC Schmid Commission started their investigations to establish the facts on the basis of documented, independent and impartial evidence. All the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establishes whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated. The findings in the IP Reports were considered in detail and both Commissions conclude that samples or urine collected from Russian Athletes were tampered with in Sochi in a systematic manner and as part of an organized scheme. The Commissions further conclude that it was not possible that the athletes were not fully implicated. They were also the main beneficiaries of the scheme. The IOC Commissions find that Prof. McLaren’s findings are not only based on the evidence provided by Dr Rodchenkov in his interviews, but on a wealth of other corroborating evidence, including other witnesses, the forensic examination of the sample bottles, the evidence showing abnormal salt results and the additional elements coming from DNA analysis. The corroborating evidence considered by Prof. McLaren included further objective elements, such as e-mails confirming that athletes were protected through different methods. ________________________________________________ Yulia Chekaleva is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women's Cross Country Skiing Events at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. In October 2017 the IOC Disciplinary Commission has reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for tampering, conspiracy and use of prohibited substances. Consequently the IOC Disciplinary Commission decided on 1 December 2017 to declare Yulia Chekaleva ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games. Further the Commission disqualified the Athlete and her Team from the events at the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games including forfeiture of any medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes. ________________________________________________ In December 2017 the Athlete Yulia Chekaleva appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). A total of 42 cases were filed with CAS by Russian athletes (the Sochi Appellants) against the decisions taken by the IOC Disciplinary Commission in relation to the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games. The Athlete and other Sochi Appellants submitted that the IOC Disciplinary Commission fundamentally erred in its application of the relevant legal framework to the facts of the Sochi Appellants’ cases. In particular, rather than seeking to determine whether the specific requirements set out in the relevant provisions of the WADC have been made out in individual cases, the IOC Commission took a generic and “broad brush approach” to its assessment of the evidence. It proceeded from a foregone conclusion and applied assumptions and circular inferential reasoning to reach its ultimate conclusion that the Sochi Appellants were each guilty of ADRVs. The Sochi Appellants disputed the reliability of the filed evidence provided by the IOC, Prof. McLaren and Dr. Rodchenko and pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence. The IOC, in its written submissions, provided a detailed description of the doping and cover-up scheme that allegedly operated in Russia from 2011 to 2015. The IOC contended that the McLaren Reports and the Schmid Report both identified the Disappearing Positive Methodology as the origin of the institutionalised doping and cover-up scheme while Dr. Rodchenkov identified the main aspects to the Disappearing Positive Methodology in his affidavits. With regard to the Athlete’s implication in this scheme, the IOC asserted that: - The Athlete’s name appears on the Duchess List. This fact is sufficient in itself to establish that she was a participant in the doping scheme. - One of the Athlete’s B sample bottles from the Sochi Games was found to contain multiple T marks, which provided strong evidence that the bottle was surreptitiously opened and that the content of the urine sample was swapped. At the same time, the fact that the other B sample bottle did not contain any T marks does not undermine this conclusion; instead, it merely reflects the fact that bottles could be opened without leaving significant marks. - Further, the sample bottle that was found to contain multiple T marks was estimated to have been closed at a level of only between six and ten clicks, which implied that the Athlete had deliberately failed to close the bottle to the fullest extent possible. - In addition, the same sample that was found to contain multiple T marks was also found to contain abnormally high levels of sodium. These urinary sodium concentrations were well beyond the range of physiological possibilities and were therefore per se sufficient evidence of tampering. - The Athlete’s implication in the doping scheme was also demonstrated by the evidence of Dr. Rodchenkov. Having thoroughly considered the submissions of the Parties, the written evidence as well as the oral evidence and testimonies provided at the six-day hearing, the Panel finds that the Athlete committed ADRVs in the form of the use of a prohibited method, i.e. urine substitution, pursuant to Article 2.2 of the WADC in connection with M2.1 of the 2014 WADA Prohibited List, and in the form of use of a prohibited substance under Article 2.2 of the WADC. The Panel was unable to find the commission of either an ADRV in the form of tampering with doping control in accordance with Article 2.5 of the WADC or an ADRV in the form of cover-up of or complicity in an ADRV under Article 2.8 of the WADC. In reaching these conclusions, the Panel wishes to underscore what it has not decided in this appeal. The Panel has not made a ruling on whether and to what extent the alleged doping scheme during the Sochi Games existed and how it operated even though it recognizes that there is significant evidence that it was in place and worked. Moreover, the Panel did not consider it possible to conclude that the mere existence of a general doping and cover-up scheme, even if established, would inexorably lead to a conclusion that the Athlete committed the ADRVs alleged by the IOC. What the Panel, in the appeal of an individual Athlete against the findings of various ADRVs by inference from the alleged doping and cover-up scheme, did decide is simply that for all of the reasons set out in this award, the evidence presented before the Panel only justified the conclusion to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that the Athlete individually committed ADRVs in violation of Article 2.2 of the WADC. Based on the finding of two individual ADRVs committed by the Athlete, the Panel concludes that the imposition of a lifetime ineligibility to participate in whatever capacity in Olympic Winter Games as well as in Games of the Olympiad is not appropriate in relation to the seriousness of the individual ADRVs and, therefore, declares the Athlete ineligible to participate in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games, i.e. the Winter Games in PyeongChang 2018. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 February 2018 that: 1.) The Appeal filed by Yulia Chekaleva on 6 December 2017 against the Decision of the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 1 December 2017 is partially upheld. 2.) Paragraph I(a) of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 1 December 2017 is modified as follows: I. The Athlete, Yulia CHEKALEVA: a) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, in connection with the World Anti-Doping Code. 3.) Paragraph IV of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 1 December 2017 is annulled and replaced as follows: IV. Yulia CHEKALEVA is declared ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games (i.e. PyeongChang 2018). 4.) All other rulings contained in the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 1 December 2017 are maintained. 5.) This Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Yulia Chekaleva, which is retained by the CAS. 6.) Each party shall bear their own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration. 7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2017_A_5438 Julia Ivanova vs IOC

CAS 2017/A/5438 Julia Ivanova v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) Related case: IOC 2017 IOC vs Yuliia Ivanova - Operative Part November 9, 2017 Skiing (cross-country skiing) Doping (use of a prohibited substance or method; tampering with doping control; cover-up of and complicity in the commission of an ADRV) Standard of proof in general Standard of proof with regard to the alleged doping scheme Means of proof Liability of the athlete in case of substitution of the content of his/her sample Elevated urinary sodium concentrations Use of a prohibited method Use of a prohibited substance Tampering with any part of doping control Administration of a prohibited method or substance to an athlete Cover-up of or complicity in the commission of an ADRV Appropriate length of the Olympic ineligibility _________________________________________________ Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof. Richard McLaren as Independent Person (IP) on 18 July 2016 and 9 December 2016, showed detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected during the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IP reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample. As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. At the same time the IOC Schmid Commission started their investigations to establish the facts on the basis of documented, independent and impartial evidence. All the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establishes whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated. The findings in the IP Reports were considered in detail and both Commissions conclude that samples or urine collected from Russian Athletes were tampered with in Sochi in a systematic manner and as part of an organized scheme. The Commissions further conclude that it was not possible that the athletes were not fully implicated. They were also the main beneficiaries of the scheme. The IOC Commissions find that Prof. McLaren’s findings are not only based on the evidence provided by Dr Rodchenkov in his interviews, but on a wealth of other corroborating evidence, including other witnesses, the forensic examination of the sample bottles, the evidence showing abnormal salt results and the additional elements coming from DNA analysis. The corroborating evidence considered by Prof. McLaren included further objective elements, such as e-mails confirming that athletes were protected through different methods. ________________________________________________ Yuliia / Julia Ivanova is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women's Classic Cross Country Skiing Events at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. In December 2016 the IOC Disciplinary Commission has reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for tampering, conspiracy and use of prohibited substances. Consequently the IOC Disciplinary Commission decided on 9 November 2017 to declare Julia Ivanova ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games. Further the Commission disqualified the Athlete and her Team from the events at the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games including forfeiture of any medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes. ________________________________________________ In December 2017 the Athlete Julia Ivanova appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). A total of 42 cases were filed with CAS by Russian athletes (the Sochi Appellants) against the decisions taken by the IOC Disciplinary Commission in relation to the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games. The Athlete and other Sochi Appellants submitted that the IOC Disciplinary Commission fundamentally erred in its application of the relevant legal framework to the facts of the Sochi Appellants’ cases. In particular, rather than seeking to determine whether the specific requirements set out in the relevant provisions of the WADC have been made out in individual cases, the IOC Commission took a generic and “broad brush approach” to its assessment of the evidence. It proceeded from a foregone conclusion and applied assumptions and circular inferential reasoning to reach its ultimate conclusion that the Sochi Appellants were each guilty of ADRVs. The Sochi Appellants disputed the reliability of the filed evidence provided by the IOC, Prof. McLaren and Dr. Rodchenko and pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence. The IOC, in its written submissions, provided a detailed description of the doping and cover-up scheme that allegedly operated in Russia from 2011 to 2015. The IOC contended that the McLaren Reports and the Schmid Report both identified the Disappearing Positive Methodology as the origin of the institutionalised doping and cover-up scheme while Dr. Rodchenkov identified the main aspects to the Disappearing Positive Methodology in his affidavits. With regard to the Athlete’s implication in this scheme, the IOC asserted that: - The Athlete’s name appears on the Duchess List. This fact is sufficient in itself to establish that she was a participant in the doping scheme. - One of the Athlete’s B sample bottles from the Sochi Games was found to contain multiple T marks, which provided strong evidence that the bottle was surreptitiously opened and that the content of the urine sample was swapped. At the same time, the fact that the other B sample bottle did not contain any T marks does not undermine this conclusion; instead, it merely reflects the fact that bottles could be opened without leaving significant marks. - Further, the sample that was found to contain multiple T marks was also found to contain abnormally high levels of sodium. These urinary sodium concentrations were well beyond the range of physiological possibilities and were therefore per se sufficient evidence of tampering. - The Athlete’s implication in the doping scheme was also demonstrated by the evidence of Dr. Rodchenkov. Having thoroughly considered the submissions of the Parties, the written evidence as well as the oral evidence and testimonies provided at the six-day hearing, the Panel finds that the Athlete committed ADRVs in the form of the use of a prohibited method, i.e. urine substitution, pursuant to Article 2.2 of the WADC in connection with M2.1 of the 2014 WADA Prohibited List, and in the form of use of a prohibited substance under Article 2.2 of the WADC. The Panel was unable to find the commission of either an ADRV in the form of tampering with doping control in accordance with Article 2.5 of the WADC or an ADRV in the form of cover-up of or complicity in an ADRV under Article 2.8 of the WADC. In reaching these conclusions, the Panel wishes to underscore what it has not decided in this appeal. The Panel has not made a ruling on whether and to what extent the alleged doping scheme during the Sochi Games existed and how it operated even though it recognizes that there is significant evidence that it was in place and worked. Moreover, the Panel did not consider it possible to conclude that the mere existence of a general doping and cover-up scheme, even if established, would inexorably lead to a conclusion that the Athlete committed the ADRVs alleged by the IOC. What the Panel, in the appeal of an individual Athlete against the findings of various ADRVs by inference from the alleged doping and cover-up scheme, did decide is simply that for all of the reasons set out in this award, the evidence presented before the Panel only justified the conclusion to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that the Athlete individually committed ADRVs in violation of Article 2.2 of the WADC. Based on the finding of two individual ADRVs committed by the Athlete, the Panel concludes that the imposition of a lifetime ineligibility to participate in whatever capacity in Olympic Winter Games as well as in Games of the Olympiad is not appropriate in relation to the seriousness of the individual ADRVs and, therefore, declares the Athlete ineligible to participate in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games, i.e. the Winter Games in PyeongChang 2018. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 February 2018 that: 1.) The Appeal filed by Julia Ivanova on 1 December 2017 against the Decision of the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 9 November 2017 is partially upheld. 2.) Paragraph I(a) of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 9 November 2017 is modified as follows: I. The Athlete, Julia IVANOVA: a) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, in connection with the World Anti-Doping Code. 3.) Paragraph V of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 9 November 2017 is annulled and replaced as follows: V. Julia IVANOVA is declared ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games (i.e. PyeongChang 2018). 4.) All other rulings contained in the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 9 November 2017 are maintained. 5.) This Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Julia Ivanova, which is retained by the CAS. 6.) Each party shall bear their own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration. 7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2017_A_5427 Ilvir Khuzin vs IOC

CAS 2017/A/5427 Ilvir Khuzin v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) Related cases: - CAS 2017_A_5476 IBSF vs Alexander Tretiakov, Elena Nikitina, Mariia Orlova, Olga Potylitsyna, Ilvir Khuzin, Alexander Kasyanov & Aleksei Pushkarev January 3, 2018 - IBSF 2017 E. Nikitina, M. Orlova, O. Potylitsyna, A. Tretiakov, A. Kasyanov, A. Pushkarev, l. Khuzin, A. Zubkov & S. Chudinov vs IBSF - Provisional Suspension #2 December 1, 2017 - IBSF 2018 IBSF vs Aleksander Kasjanov, Ilvir Khuzin, Aleksei Pushkarev & Aleksander Zubkov January 16, 2019 - IOC 2017 IOC vs Ilvir Khuzin - Decision December 20, 2017 - IOC 2017 IOC vs Ilvir Khuzin - Operative Part November 29, 2017 Bobsleigh Doping (use of a prohibited substance or method; tampering with doping control; cover-up of and complicity in the commission of an ADRV) Standard of proof in general Standard of proof with regard to the alleged doping scheme Means of proof Liability of the athlete in case of substitution of the content of his/her sample Elevated urinary sodium concentrations Use of a prohibited method Use of a prohibited substance Tampering with any part of doping control Administration of a prohibited method or substance to an athlete Cover-up of or complicity in the commission of an ADRV Consequences to the team of the disqualification of a team member’s individual results Appropriate length of the Olympic ineligibility _________________________________________________ Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof. Richard McLaren as Independent Person (IP) on 18 July 2016 and 9 December 2016, showed detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected during the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IP reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample. As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. At the same time the IOC Schmid Commission started their investigations to establish the facts on the basis of documented, independent and impartial evidence. All the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establishes whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated. The findings in the IP Reports were considered in detail and both Commissions conclude that samples of urine collected from Russian Athletes were tampered with in Sochi in a systematic manner and as part of an organized scheme. The Commissions further conclude that it was not possible that the athletes were not fully implicated. They were also the main beneficiaries of the scheme. The IOC Commissions find that Prof. McLaren’s findings are not only based on the evidence provided by Dr Rodchenkov in his interviews, but on a wealth of other corroborating evidence, including other witnesses, the forensic examination of the sample bottles, the evidence showing abnormal salt results and the additional elements coming from DNA analysis. The corroborating evidence considered by Prof. McLaren included further objective elements, such as e-mails confirming that athletes were protected through different methods. ________________________________________________ Ilvir Khuzin is a Russian Athlete competing in the Men's Bobsleigh Event at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. In October 2017 the IOC Disciplinary Commission has reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for tampering, conspiracy and use of prohibited substances. Consequently the IOC Disciplinary Commission decided on 20 December 2017 to declare Ilvir Khuzin ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games. Further the Commission disqualified the Athlete and his Team from the events at the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games including forfeiture of any medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes. ________________________________________________ In December 2017 the Athlete Ilvir Khuzin appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). A total of 42 cases were filed with CAS by Russian athletes (the Sochi Appellants) against the decisions taken by the IOC Disciplinary Commission in relation to the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games. The Athlete and other Sochi Appellants submitted that the IOC Disciplinary Commission fundamentally erred in its application of the relevant legal framework to the facts of the Sochi Appellants’ cases. In particular, rather than seeking to determine whether the specific requirements set out in the relevant provisions of the WADC have been made out in individual cases, the IOC Commission took a generic and “broad brush approach” to its assessment of the evidence. It proceeded from a foregone conclusion and applied assumptions and circular inferential reasoning to reach its ultimate conclusion that the Sochi Appellants were each guilty of ADRVs. The Sochi Appellants disputed the reliability of the filed evidence provided by the IOC, Prof. McLaren and Dr. Rodchenko and pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence. The IOC, in its written submissions, provided a detailed description of the doping and cover-up scheme that allegedly operated in Russia from 2011 to 2015. The IOC contended that the McLaren Reports and the Schmid Report both identified the Disappearing Positive Methodology as the origin of the institutionalised doping and cover-up scheme while Dr. Rodchenkov identified the main aspects to the Disappearing Positive Methodology in his affidavits. With regard to the Athlete’s implication in this scheme, the IOC asserted that: - All eight athletes participating in the Russian Men’s Bobsleigh Teams had samples from the Sochi Games with direct evidence of tampering; out of 15 samples: (a) 10 had multiple T marks; and (b) five had abnormal sodium content. - In addition, there was direct evidence of tampering (in the form of multiple T marks) of samples provided by two members of the Russian Women’s Bobsleigh Team. - Accordingly, it had been established that “the members of the Russian National Bobsleigh Team were directly implicated in the scheme”. - The Athlete’s samples from two doping control tests carried out at the Sochi Games showed strong evidence of tampering: T marks on the sample bottles and the urine in these bottles had an abnormal level of sodium, which indicated that the sample gravity was adjusted through the addition of salt. - In respect of urinary sodium concentrations, the urine in the sample bottles in question contained levels of sodium beyond the range of renal physiological capacity and was per se conclusive evidence of tampering. - The Athlete’s implication in the doping scheme was also demonstrated by the evidence of Dr. Rodchenkov. Having thoroughly considered the submissions of the Parties, the written evidence as well as the oral evidence and testimonies provided at the six-day hearing, the Panel finds that the Athlete committed ADRVs in the form of the use of a prohibited method, i.e. urine substitution, pursuant to Article 2.2 of the WADC in connection with M2.1 of the 2014 WADA Prohibited List, and in the form of use of a prohibited substance under Article 2.2 of the WADC. The Panel was unable to find the commission of either an ADRV in the form of tampering with doping control in accordance with Article 2.5 of the WADC or an ADRV in the form of cover-up of or complicity in an ADRV under Article 2.8 of the WADC. In reaching these conclusions, the Panel wishes to underscore what it has not decided in this appeal. The Panel has not made a ruling on whether and to what extent the alleged doping scheme during the Sochi Games existed and how it operated even though it recognizes that there is significant evidence that it was in place and worked. Moreover, the Panel did not consider it possible to conclude that the mere existence of a general doping and cover-up scheme, even if established, would inexorably lead to a conclusion that the Athlete committed the ADRVs alleged by the IOC. What the Panel, in the appeal of an individual Athlete against the findings of various ADRVs by inference from the alleged doping and cover-up scheme, did decide is simply that for all of the reasons set out in this award, the evidence presented before the Panel only justified the conclusion to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that the Athlete individually committed ADRVs in violation of Article 2.2 of the WADC. Based on the finding of two individual ADRVs committed by the Athlete, the Panel concludes that the imposition of a lifetime ineligibility to participate in whatever capacity in Olympic Winter Games as well as in Games of the Olympiad is not appropriate in relation to the seriousness of the individual ADRVs and, therefore, declares the Athlete ineligible to participate in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games, i.e. the Winter Games in PyeongChang 2018. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 February 2018 that: 1.) The Appeal filed by Ilvir Khuzin on 1 December 2017 against the Decision of the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 29 November 2017 (and confirmed by the reasoned decision on 20 December 2017) is partially upheld. 2.) Paragraph I(a) of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 29 November 2017 (and confirmed by the reasoned decision on 20 December 2017) is modified as follows: I. The Athlete, Ilvir KHUZIN: a) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, in connection with the World Anti-Doping Code. 3.) Paragraph IV of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 29 November 2017 (and confirmed by the reasoned decision on 20 December 2017) is annulled and replaced as follows: IV. Ilvir KHUZIN is declared ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games (i.e. PyeongChang 2018). 4.) All other rulings contained in the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 29 November 2017 (and confirmed by the reasoned decision on 20 December 2017) are maintained. 5.) This Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Ilvir Khuzin, which is retained by the CAS. 6.) Each party shall bear their own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration. 7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2017_A_5426 Aleksei Pushkarev vs IOC

CAS 2017/A/5426 Aleksei Pushkarev v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) Related cases: - IOC 2017 IOC vs Aleksei Pushkarev - Operative Part November 29, 2017 - IOC 2017 IOC vs Aleksei Pushkarev - Decision December 20, 2017 - CAS 2017_A_5476 IBSF vs Alexander Tretiakov, Elena Nikitina, Mariia Orlova, Olga Potylitsyna, Ilvir Khuzin, Alexander Kasyanov & Aleksei Pushkarev January 3, 2018 - IBSF 2017 E. Nikitina, M. Orlova, O. Potylitsyna, A. Tretiakov, A. Kasyanov, A. Pushkarev, l. Khuzin, A. Zubkov & S. Chudinov vs IBSF - Provisional Suspension #2 December 1, 2017 - IBSF 2018 IBSF vs Aleksander Kasjanov, Ilvir Khuzin, Aleksei Pushkarev & Aleksander Zubkov January 16, 2019 Bobsleigh Doping (use of a prohibited substance or method; tampering with doping control; cover-up of and complicity in the commission of an ADRV) Standard of proof in general Standard of proof with regard to the alleged doping scheme Means of proof Liability of the athlete in case of substitution of the content of his/her sample Elevated urinary sodium concentrations Use of a prohibited method Use of a prohibited substance Tampering with any part of doping control Administration of a prohibited method or substance to an athlete Cover-up of or complicity in the commission of an ADRV Consequences to the team of the disqualification of a team member’s individual results Appropriate length of the Olympic ineligibility _________________________________________________ Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof. Richard McLaren as Independent Person (IP) on 18 July 2016 and 9 December 2016, showed detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected during the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IP reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample. As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. At the same time the IOC Schmid Commission started their investigations to establish the facts on the basis of documented, independent and impartial evidence. All the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establishes whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated. The findings in the IP Reports were considered in detail and both Commissions conclude that samples or urine collected from Russian Athletes were tampered with in Sochi in a systematic manner and as part of an organized scheme. The Commissions further conclude that it was not possible that the athletes were not fully implicated. They were also the main beneficiaries of the scheme. The IOC Commissions find that Prof. McLaren’s findings are not only based on the evidence provided by Dr Rodchenkov in his interviews, but on a wealth of other corroborating evidence, including other witnesses, the forensic examination of the sample bottles, the evidence showing abnormal salt results and the additional elements coming from DNA analysis. The corroborating evidence considered by Prof. McLaren included further objective elements, such as e-mails confirming that athletes were protected through different methods. ________________________________________________ Aleksei Pushkarev is a Russian Athlete competing in the Men's Bobsleigh Event at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. In October 2017 the IOC Disciplinary Commission has reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for tampering, conspiracy and use of prohibited substances. Consequently the IOC Disciplinary Commission decided on 20 December 2017 to declare Aleksei Pushkarev ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games. Further the Commission disqualified the Athlete and his Team from the events at the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games including forfeiture of any medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes. ________________________________________________ In December 2017 the Athlete Aleksei Pushkarev appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). A total of 42 cases were filed with CAS by Russian athletes (the Sochi Appellants) against the decisions taken by the IOC Disciplinary Commission in relation to the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games. The Athlete and other Sochi Appellants submitted that the IOC Disciplinary Commission fundamentally erred in its application of the relevant legal framework to the facts of the Sochi Appellants’ cases. In particular, rather than seeking to determine whether the specific requirements set out in the relevant provisions of the WADC have been made out in individual cases, the IOC Commission took a generic and “broad brush approach” to its assessment of the evidence. It proceeded from a foregone conclusion and applied assumptions and circular inferential reasoning to reach its ultimate conclusion that the Sochi Appellants were each guilty of ADRVs. The Sochi Appellants disputed the reliability of the filed evidence provided by the IOC, Prof. McLaren and Dr. Rodchenko and pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence. The IOC, in its written submissions, provided a detailed description of the doping and cover-up scheme that allegedly operated in Russia from 2011 to 2015. The IOC contended that the McLaren Reports and the Schmid Report both identified the Disappearing Positive Methodology as the origin of the institutionalised doping and cover-up scheme while Dr. Rodchenkov identified the main aspects to the Disappearing Positive Methodology in his affidavits. With regard to the Athlete’s implication in this scheme, the IOC asserted that: - All eight athletes participating in the Russian Men’s Bobsleigh Teams had samples from the Sochi Games with direct evidence of tampering; out of 15 samples: (a) 10 had multiple T marks; and (b) five had abnormal sodium content. - In addition, there was direct evidence of tampering (in the form of multiple T marks) of samples provided by two members of the Russian Women’s Bobsleigh Team. - Accordingly, it had been established that “the members of the Russian National Bobsleigh Team were directly implicated in the scheme”. - The Athlete’s samples from two doping control tests carried out at the Sochi Games showed strong evidence of tampering: T marks on the sample bottles and the urine in these bottles had an abnormal level of sodium, which indicated that the sample gravity was adjusted through the addition of salt. - In respect of urinary sodium concentrations, the urine in the sample bottles in question contained levels of sodium beyond the range of renal physiological capacity and was per se conclusive evidence of tampering. - The fact that the Athlete has previously undergone multiple doping controls outside Russia, which have not resulted in any adverse analytical finding, does not contradict the conclusion that he committed ADRVs at the Sochi Games. Doping violations are frequently committed by athletes who have previously been subject to extensive doping controls. - The Athlete’s implication in the doping scheme was also demonstrated by the evidence of Dr. Rodchenkov. Having thoroughly considered the submissions of the Parties, the written evidence as well as the oral evidence and testimonies provided at the six-day hearing, the Panel finds that the Athlete committed ADRVs in the form of the use of a prohibited method, i.e. urine substitution, pursuant to Article 2.2 of the WADC in connection with M2.1 of the 2014 WADA Prohibited List, and in the form of use of a prohibited substance under Article 2.2 of the WADC. The Panel was unable to find the commission of either an ADRV in the form of tampering with doping control in accordance with Article 2.5 of the WADC or an ADRV in the form of cover-up of or complicity in an ADRV under Article 2.8 of the WADC. In reaching these conclusions, the Panel wishes to underscore what it has not decided in this appeal. The Panel has not made a ruling on whether and to what extent the alleged doping scheme during the Sochi Games existed and how it operated even though it recognizes that there is significant evidence that it was in place and worked. Moreover, the Panel did not consider it possible to conclude that the mere existence of a general doping and cover-up scheme, even if established, would inexorably lead to a conclusion that the Athlete committed the ADRVs alleged by the IOC. What the Panel, in the appeal of an individual Athlete against the findings of various ADRVs by inference from the alleged doping and cover-up scheme, did decide is simply that for all of the reasons set out in this award, the evidence presented before the Panel only justified the conclusion to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that the Athlete individually committed ADRVs in violation of Article 2.2 of the WADC. Based on the finding of two individual ADRVs committed by the Athlete, the Panel concludes that the imposition of a lifetime ineligibility to participate in whatever capacity in Olympic Winter Games as well as in Games of the Olympiad is not appropriate in relation to the seriousness of the individual ADRVs and, therefore, declares the Athlete ineligible to participate in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games, i.e. the Winter Games in PyeongChang 2018. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 February 2018 that: 1.) The Appeal filed by Aleksei Pushkarev on 1 December 2017 against the Decision of the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 29 November 2017 (as confirmed by the reasoned decision dated 20 December 2017) is partially upheld. 2.) Paragraph I(a) of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 29 November 2017 (as confirmed by the reasoned decision dated 20 December 2017) is modified as follows: I. The Athlete, Aleksei PUSHKAREV: a) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, in connection with the World Anti-Doping Code. 3.) Paragraph IV of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 29 November 2017 (as confirmed by the reasoned decision dated 20 December 2017) is annulled and replaced as follows: IV. Aleksei PUSHKAREV is declared ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games (i.e. PyeongChang 2018). 4.) All other rulings contained in the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 29 November 2017 (as confirmed by the reasoned decision dated 20 December 2017) are maintained. 5.) This Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Aleksei Pushkarev, which is retained by the CAS. 6.) Each party shall bear their own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration. 7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf

CAS 2017_A_5425 Alexander Kasyanov vs IOC

CAS 2017/A/5425 Alexander Kasyanov v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) Related cases: - IOC 2017 IOC vs Alexander Kas'yanov - Operative Part November 29, 2017 - IOC 2017 IOC vs Alexander Kas'yanov - Decision December 20, 2017 - IBSF 2017 E. Nikitina, M. Orlova, O. Potylitsyna, A. Tretiakov, A. Kasyanov, A. Pushkarev, l. Khuzin, A. Zubkov & S. Chudinov vs IBSF - Provisional Suspension #2 December 1, 2017 - CAS 2017_A_5476 IBSF vs Alexander Tretiakov, Elena Nikitina, Mariia Orlova, Olga Potylitsyna, Ilvir Khuzin, Alexander Kasyanov & Aleksei Pushkarev January 3, 2018 Bobsleigh Doping (use of a prohibited substance or method; tampering with doping control; cover-up of and complicity in the commission of an ADRV) Standard of proof in general Standard of proof with regard to the alleged doping scheme Means of proof Liability of the athlete in case of substitution of the content of his/her sample Elevated urinary sodium concentrations Use of a prohibited method Use of a prohibited substance Tampering with any part of doping control Administration of a prohibited method or substance to an athlete Cover-up of or complicity in the commission of an ADRV Consequences to the team of the disqualification of a team member’s individual results Appropriate length of the Olympic ineligibility _________________________________________________ Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof. Richard McLaren as Independent Person (IP) on 18 July 2016 and 9 December 2016, showed detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected during the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IP reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample. As a result of the McLaren Reports the IOC Oswald Commission started investigations in order to establish the possible liability of individual athletes and to issue any sanctions so that decisions could be taken as far in advance of the 2018 Winter Games as possible. At the same time the IOC Schmid Commission started their investigations to establish the facts on the basis of documented, independent and impartial evidence. All the samples of all Russian athletes who participated in Sochi were re-analysed. The re-analysis establishes whether there was doping or whether the samples themselves were manipulated. The findings in the IP Reports were considered in detail and both Commissions conclude that samples or urine collected from Russian Athletes were tampered with in Sochi in a systematic manner and as part of an organized scheme. The Commissions further conclude that it was not possible that the athletes were not fully implicated. They were also the main beneficiaries of the scheme. The IOC Commissions find that Prof. McLaren’s findings are not only based on the evidence provided by Dr Rodchenkov in his interviews, but on a wealth of other corroborating evidence, including other witnesses, the forensic examination of the sample bottles, the evidence showing abnormal salt results and the additional elements coming from DNA analysis. The corroborating evidence considered by Prof. McLaren included further objective elements, such as e-mails confirming that athletes were protected through different methods. ________________________________________________ Alexander Kas'yanov (Kasyanov / Kasjanov) is a Russian Athlete competing in the Men's Bobsleigh Events at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. In October 2017 the IOC Disciplinary Commission has reported multiple anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for tampering, conspiracy and use of prohibited substances. Consequently the IOC Disciplinary Commission decided on 20 December 2017 to declare Alexander Kas'yanov ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for all editions of the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games. Further the Commission disqualified the Athlete and his Team from the events at the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games including forfeiture of any medal, diploma, medallist pin, points and prizes. ________________________________________________ In December 2017 the Athlete Alexander Kas'yanov appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). A total of 42 cases were filed with CAS by Russian athletes (the Sochi Appellants) against the decisions taken by the IOC Disciplinary Commission in relation to the 2014 Sochi Olympic Winter Games. The Athlete and other Sochi Appellants submitted that the IOC Disciplinary Commission fundamentally erred in its application of the relevant legal framework to the facts of the Sochi Appellants’ cases. In particular, rather than seeking to determine whether the specific requirements set out in the relevant provisions of the WADC have been made out in individual cases, the IOC Commission took a generic and “broad brush approach” to its assessment of the evidence. It proceeded from a foregone conclusion and applied assumptions and circular inferential reasoning to reach its ultimate conclusion that the Sochi Appellants were each guilty of ADRVs. The Sochi Appellants disputed the reliability of the filed evidence provided by the IOC, Prof. McLaren and Dr. Rodchenko and pointed to various inconsistencies in this evidence. The IOC, in its written submissions, provided a detailed description of the doping and cover-up scheme that allegedly operated in Russia from 2011 to 2015. The IOC contended that the McLaren Reports and the Schmid Report both identified the Disappearing Positive Methodology as the origin of the institutionalised doping and cover-up scheme while Dr. Rodchenkov identified the main aspects to the Disappearing Positive Methodology in his affidavits. With regard to the Athlete’s implication in this scheme, the IOC asserted that: - All eight athletes participating in the Russian Men’s Bobsleigh Teams had samples from the Sochi Games with direct evidence of tampering; out of 15 samples: (a) 10 had multiple T marks; and (b) five had abnormal sodium content. - In addition, there was direct evidence of tampering (in the form of multiple T marks) of samples provided by two members of the Russian Women’s Bobsleigh Team. - Accordingly, it had been established that “the members of the Russian National Bobsleigh Team were directly implicated in the scheme”. - The Athlete’s samples from two doping control tests carried out at the Sochi Games showed strong evidence of tampering: T marks on the sample bottles as evidence that these bottles were surreptitiously reopenend. - In respect of urinary sodium concentrations, the urine in the sample bottles in question contained levels of sodium beyond the range of renal physiological capacity and was per se conclusive evidence of tampering. - The fact that the Athlete has previously undergone multiple doping controls outside Russia, which have not resulted in any adverse analytical finding, does not contradict the conclusion that he committed ADRVs at the Sochi Games. Doping violations are frequently committed by athletes who have previously been subject to extensive doping controls. - The Athlete’s implication in the doping scheme was also demonstrated by the evidence of Dr. Rodchenkov. Having thoroughly considered the submissions of the Parties, the written evidence as well as the oral evidence and testimonies provided at the six-day hearing, the Panel finds that the Athlete committed ADRVs in the form of the use of a prohibited method, i.e. urine substitution, pursuant to Article 2.2 of the WADC in connection with M2.1 of the 2014 WADA Prohibited List, and in the form of use of a prohibited substance under Article 2.2 of the WADC. The Panel was unable to find the commission of either an ADRV in the form of tampering with doping control in accordance with Article 2.5 of the WADC or an ADRV in the form of cover-up of or complicity in an ADRV under Article 2.8 of the WADC. In reaching these conclusions, the Panel wishes to underscore what it has not decided in this appeal. The Panel has not made a ruling on whether and to what extent the alleged doping scheme during the Sochi Games existed and how it operated even though it recognizes that there is significant evidence that it was in place and worked. Moreover, the Panel did not consider it possible to conclude that the mere existence of a general doping and cover-up scheme, even if established, would inexorably lead to a conclusion that the Athlete committed the ADRVs alleged by the IOC. What the Panel, in the appeal of an individual Athlete against the findings of various ADRVs by inference from the alleged doping and cover-up scheme, did decide is simply that for all of the reasons set out in this award, the evidence presented before the Panel only justified the conclusion to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that the Athlete individually committed ADRVs in violation of Article 2.2 of the WADC. Based on the finding of two individual ADRVs committed by the Athlete, the Panel concludes that the imposition of a lifetime ineligibility to participate in whatever capacity in Olympic Winter Games as well as in Games of the Olympiad is not appropriate in relation to the seriousness of the individual ADRVs and, therefore, declares the Athlete ineligible to participate in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games, i.e. the Winter Games in PyeongChang 2018. Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 February 2018 that: 1.) The Appeal filed by Alexander Kasyanov on 1 December 2017 against the Decision of the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 29 November 2017 (and amended by the reasoned decision on 20 December 2017) is partially upheld. 2.) Paragraph I(a) of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 29 November 2017 (and amended by the reasoned decision on 20 December 2017) is modified as follows: I. The Athlete, Alexander KASYANOV: a) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, in connection with the World Anti-Doping Code. 3.) Paragraph IV of the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 29 November 2017 (and amended by the reasoned decision on 20 December) is annulled and replaced as follows: V. Alexander KASYANOV is declared ineligible to be accredited in any capacity for the next edition of the Olympic Winter Games subsequent to the Sochi Olympic Winter Games (i.e. PyeongChang 2018). 4.) The Russian Team which ranked 4th in the 2-Man Bobsleigh event is disqualified. The corresponding diplomas are withdrawn and shall be returned to the International Olympic Committee. 5.) All other rulings contained in the Decision rendered by the International Olympic Committee Disciplinary Commission dated 29 November 2017 (and amended by the reasoned decisions on 20 December 2017) are maintained. 6.) This Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Alexander Kasyanov, which is retained by the CAS. 7.) Each party shall bear their own costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration. 8.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

show » details »
Type:
pdf
Category
  • Legal
  • 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