CAS OG_2016_18 Kiril Sveshnikov, Dmitry Sokolov & Dmitry Strakhov vs UCI & IOC

CAS OG 16/18 Kiril Sveshnikov et al vs UCI & IOC

On 18 July 2016, WADA's Independent Person, Mr. Richard McLaren, published on the WADA website its official independent report (the "McLaren Report") describing a fraudulent, government directed scheme to protect Russian athletes from ADRVs, including with respect to disqualification during the Sochi Winter Games.

On 22 July 2016, The UCI received correspondence from WADA attaching information from the McLaren Report that related specifically to the UCI.

On 24 July 2016, the IOC Executive Board issued a decision (the "IOC Decision") concerning the participation of Russian athletes in the Rio Games. According to this decision the following was stated:

"2. Entry will be accepted by the IOC only if an athlete is able to provide evidence to the full satisfaction of his or her International Federation (IF) in relation to the following criteria:
[. . .]
The IFs should carry out an individual analysis of each athlete's anti-doping record, taking into account only reliable adequate international tests, and the specificities of the athlete's sport and its rules, in order to ensure a level playing field.
[. . .]
3. The ROC is not allowed to enter any athlete for the Olympic Games Rio 2016 who has ever been sanctioned for doping, even if he or she has served the sanction".

On 27 July 2016, the UCI responded to the IOC by confirming that, under the UCI Rules, all riders on the provisional list would be eligible to participate in the 2016 Olympic Games.

On 28 July 2016 the UCI issued a statement that three Russian riders in this case had been withdrawn by the ROC because they have been sanctioned previously for Anti-Doping Rule Violations and UCI passed the names of these three Athletes to the IOC.

On 3 August 2016, the IOC sent a letter to the UCI indicating that, in accordance with the IOC Criteria, the IOC Executive Board has subsequently delegated the final review of entries of Russian athletes to a Review Panel composed of three IOC Executive Board members operating in the light of point 4 of the IOC Criteria.

The IOC Review Panel confirmed the eligibility of the 13 Russian athletes as mentioned on the UCI list of 27 July 2016. The Panel submitted to the UCI: “the three athletes Dmitrii Sokolov, Dmitrii Strakhov and Kirill Sveshnikov do not meet the criteria set by the IOC Executive Committee Board and are therefore not deemed eligible for entry in the Olympic Games Rio 2016 and therefore we request for UCI to reallocate the quota places next best ranked NOC according to your qualification system.”

Hereafter on 3 August 2016 the three excluded Russian Athletes filed their application against UCI and IOC with the CAS Ad Hoc Division in Rio de Janeiro. On the same day the Athletes submitted to the CAS Ad Hoc Division that their application was only addressed against the UCI Decision and not against the IOC anymore as one of the respondents. The Athlete requested the CAS Ad hoc Division Panel to set aside the IOC Decision of 24 July 2016 and the UCI decision of 28 July 2016 and to allow the athletes to participate to the Rio 2016 Olympic Games. UCI requested the Panel to reject the appeal.

The Panel finds that the Athletes have no such standing to appeal with CAS, because UCI did not take any decision that adversely affected the legal position of the Applicants. The only decision taken that aggrieved the Applicants was the IOC Decision of 3 August 2016, which explicitly stated that “the three athletes Dmitrii Sokolov, Dmitrii Strakhov and Kirill Sveshnikov do not meet the criteria set by the IOC Executive Committee Board and are therefore not deemed eligible for entry in the Olympic Games Rio 2016 and therefore we request for UCI to reallocate the quota places next best ranked NOC according to your qualification system.”
It was, thus, the IOC and not the UCI that excluded the Applicants from the participation in the RIO 2016 Olympic Games. It is apparent that the Applicants are aggrieved by the IOC Decision and not the UCI Statement. The Applicants cannot maintain an appeal against a decision made by the IOC, when it is not a party to these proceedings. The Panel concludes that the Appeal or application must be dismissed because the Applicants lack standing to sue.

Therefore the CAS Ad Hoc Division Panel decides on 6 August 2016 that the application filed by Kirill Sveshnikov, Dmitry Sokolov and Dmitry Strakhov on 3 August 2016 is dismissed.

Original document

Parameters

Legal Source
CAS Appeal Awards
CAS Miscellaneous Awards
Date
8 August 2016
Arbitrator
Davani, Catherine Anne
Haas, Ulrich
Raouf, Mohammed Abdel
Original Source
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
Country
Russian Federation
Language
English
Legal Terms
Ad hoc Panel
Anti-Doping policy
Case law / jurisprudence
Consequences to athletes / teams
No standing to appeal / to sue
Removal of accreditation for the Olympic Games
Rules & regulations International Sports Federations
Rules & regulations IOC
Sport/IFs
Cycling (UCI) - International Cycling Union
Other organisations
International Olympic Committee (IOC)
Olympiyskiy Komitet Rossii (OKR) - Russian Olympic Committee (ROC)
Laboratories
Moscow, Russia: Antidoping Centre Moscow [*]
[Satellite laboratory] Sochi (RUS)
Analytical aspects
Testing results set aside
Various
Disappearing positive methodology
Doping culture
McLaren reports
Document type
Pdf file
Date generated
10 August 2016
Date of last modification
15 May 2018
Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin