Related cases:
- CAS 2016_O_4469 IAAF vs ARAF & Tatyana Chernova
November 29, 2016
- CAS 2017_A_4949 Tatyana Chernova vs IAAF
July 18, 2017
- CAS 2017_A_5124 Tatyana Chernova vs IOC
December 4, 2017
Ms Tatyana Chernova is a Russian Athlete competing in the Women’s heptathlon event at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.
In 2016, the IOC decided to perform further analyses on certain samples collected during the 2008 Olympic Games. These additional analyses were performed with analytical methods which were not available in 2008.
In July 2016 the International Olympic Committee reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her 2008 A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (turinabol).
After notification the Athlete submitted that she did not accept the test results. She filed a statement in her defence and was heard for the IOC Disciplinary Commission.
The Disciplinary Commission notes that the Athlete previously already was sanctioned by Rusada on 15 January 2015 for the use of turinabol and hereafter sanctioned in first instance by CAS (CAS 2016/O/4469) in an ABP case.
The Athlete asserted that the McLaren Report, filed by the IOC, does not establish that she committed an anti-doping rule violation and challenged, supported by an expert witness, the validity of the test results.
The IOC justified the filing of the McLaren Report in this case due to it constitute relevant circumstantial evidence supporting the analytical findings: indentifying a specific substance very commonly used in the environment of the Athlete.
The Disciplinary Commission finds that the Athlete and her expert witness did not meet her burden to rebut the presumption according to which the WADA accredited laboratory is presumed to have conducted the analysis in accordance with the ISL and other applicable technical documents. That the substance identified in her samples was oral turinabol is reinforced by the fact that the Athlete was found to have used this very same substance one year later. In this case, she did not attempt to challenge the result. On the contrary, her argument in the further ABP case that her blood results were influenced by the fact that she was using oral turinabol is a direct admission that she has been using that substance, at least in 2009.
Furthermore the fact that the Athlete’s expert witness would have accepted to appear as an expert in these proceedings to challenge the validity of the establishment of the presence of oral turinabol, whilst he had previously appeared in another proceedings to sustain an argument based on the fact that the same Athlete did use the substance in question is, to say the least, troubling. The fact that the issue is considered in two different time periods may make theoretically possible to sustain both positions. However, the Disciplinary Commission observes that this does not reinforce the overall credibility of the expert and of the explanations he has been providing in these proceedings.
The Commission concludes that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation consistent with the intentional use of a prohibited substance specifically ingested to deliberately improve performance. The fact that the metabolite of a doping substance, which is a traditional doping substance was found, supports this consideration.
The Disciplinary Commission, which has now handled multiple cases arising out of the re-analysis of samples collection on the occasion of the 2008 and 2012 Olympic Games, observes that the presence of the metabolites of this particular substance has been established in a remarkably high number of cases. This constitutes an indication that said substance has been in widespread use by athletes, who were doping at that time.
Therefore the IOC Disciplinary Commission decides on 19 April 2017 that the Athlete, Tatyana Chernova:
1.) is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad in Beijing in 2008 (presence and/or use, of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an athlete’s bodily specimen),
2.) is disqualified from the Women’s heptathlon event in which she participated upon the occasion of the Olympic Games Beijing 2008,
3.) has the bronze medal, the medallist pin and the diploma obtained in the Women’s heptathlon event withdrawn and is ordered to return the same.
4.) The IAAF is requested to modify the results of the above-mentioned event accordingly and to consider any further action within its own competence.
5.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall ensure full implementation of this decision.
6.) The Russian Olympic Committee shall notably secure the return to the IOC, as soon as possible, of the bronze medal, the medallist pin and the diploma awarded in connection the Women’s heptathlon event to the Athlete.
7.) This decision enters into force immediately.
