CAS 2016/A/4480 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. All Russia Athletics Federation (ARAF) and Vladimir Kazarin
Related cases:
- CAS 2016_A_4486 IAAF vs Ekaterina Poistogova
April 7, 2017 - CAS 2016_A_4487 IAAF vs Alexey Melnikov
April 7, 2017 - CAS 2016_O_4481 IAAF vs ARAF & Mariya Savinova-Farnosova
February 10, 2017 - CAS 2016_O_4488 IAAF vs ARAF & Anastasiya Bazdyreva
December 23, 2016 - CAS 2016_O_4504 IAAF vs ARAF & Vladimir Mokhnev
December 23, 2016 - CAS 2016_O_4575 IAAF vs ARAF & Sergei Portugalov
March 10, 2017 - IAAF 2019 IAAF vs Artyom Denmukhametov
October 21, 2019
- Athletics
- Doping violations committed by a coach
- CAS jurisdiction according to IAAF Rule 38.19
- Applicable law
- Admissibility of evidence establishing the violations of possession, trafficking and administration by a coach
- Determination of the applicable sanction in view of aggravating circumstances (lifetime ban)
1. The applicable 2016 IAAF Competition Rules, expressly permit anti-doping rule violation cases to be filed directly with the CAS as a sole instance adjudicatory body. In this regard, IAAF Rule 38.19 provides that cases asserting anti-doping rule violations may be heard directly by CAS with no requirement for a prior hearing, with the consent of all the relevant stakeholders i.e. the IAAF, the Athlete, WADA and any Anti-Doping Organisation that would have had a right to appeal a first hearing decision to CAS.
2. A case filed directly with the CAS as a sole instance adjudicatory body in accordance with IAAF Rule 38.19 is not an appeal. However, it follows from IAAF Rule 38.3 that in a case directly referred to CAS, the case shall be handled in accordance with CAS rules applicable to the appeal arbitration procedure without reference to any time of limit for appeal. The purpose of the direct hearing at the CAS is to shortcut the otherwise applicable procedure. Given that the substantive outcome of the shortcut should not differ from the outcome of the otherwise applicable procedure, the substantive issues are to be governed by the “applicable regulations” referred to in article R58 of the CAS Code, namely the IAAF Rules in force at the time of the alleged violations.
3. The admittance of means of evidence is subject to procedural laws. In this respect, Rule 33(3) IAAF Rules determines that anti-doping rule violations may be established by “any reliable means”. Considering the very large scope of means of admissible evidence provided by Rule 33(3), testimonies and recordings should be considered as reliable mean of evidence in the sense of the 2016 IAAF Rules. Even illegally obtained evidence may be admissible if the interest to find the truth prevails. Based on testimonies and recordings, a panel can be comfortably satisfied that a coach is guilty of having been in Possession of multiple Prohibited Substances in the sense of Rule 32.2 (f) of the IAAF Rules, of Trafficking multiple Prohibited Substances in the sense of Rule 32.2 (g) of the IAAF Rules, and of Administration of multiple Prohibited Substances in the sense of Rule 32.2 (h) of the IAAF Rules.
4. A sanction imposed on an athlete or on Athlete Support Personnel must respect the principle of proportionality. This is particularly so since the applicable rules regarding the extent of the sanction allow some flexibility; the sanction imposed must be in line with the seriousness of the offence. In this respect, an offence may be considered of the most serious nature where a coach is held liable for several separate offences and this on multiple occasions and over a considerable period of time. Furthermore, in some cases Athlete Support Personnel may bear an even higher responsibility than the athletes themselves in respect of doping, considering the influence they usually exert on their athletes. The fact that the coach committed multiple offences, made no admission of guilt, showed no remorse for his actions, provided no assistance to the anti-doping authorities, contributed to create a culture in national athletics whereby athletes felt compelled to dope in order to compete and colluded with other Athlete Support Personnel to further the doping culture in national athletics, constitutes aggravating circumstances. A lifetime period of ineligibility can be considered both justifiable and proportionate even if the ban is imposed for a first violation.
Mr Vladimir Kazarin (the Trainer) is a Russian athletics coach, training short, middle and long-distance runners.
In the period from 2013 to 2014, the Russian Athlete Yulia Stepanova secretly recorded a number of conversations that she had with Russian athletes and Athlete Support Personnel. With a view to exposing the widespread doping practices within Russian athletics, Ms Stepanova made those recordings available to Mr Hajo Seppelt, a German journalist. Mr Seppelt used some of those recordings to produce a documentary alleging widespread doping in Russian athletics which was broadcasted in December 2014.
With the evidence and statements provided by Ms Stepanova (Stepanova Statement) the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported in August 2015 anti-doping rule violations against the Trainer for his involvement over a course of years in procuring and providing prohibited substances to athletes training under him. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Trainer filed a statement in his defence.
Because the All Russia Athletic Federation (ARAF) was suspended by the IAAF the case was referred in March 2016 to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a first instance hearing panel procedure with the right to appeal.
The IAAF requested the Panel to impose a lifetime period of ineligibility on the Trainer with aggravating circumstances for the possession, administration and trafficking of prohibited substances.
The Trainer asserted that the Stepanova Statement was a short narration of alleged conversations along with some unfounded allegations. He argued that the recordings and excerpts of transcripts relied upon by the IAAF do not constitute strong evidence or even clear and convincing evidence of the anti-doping violations.
The CAS Panel comes to the conclusion that the recordings of Ms Stepanova's conversations are admissible as evidence in the proceedings at hand. The Panel finds that the Trainer was unable to undermine the evidence provided by Ms Stepanova in her testimony and examination. It is evidence which the Panel accepted and relies on in arriving at its conclusions. By contrast, the Panel rejected parts of the Trainer's testimony.
The Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Trainer is guilty of Possession, Trafficking, and of Administration of multiple Prohibited Substances under the IAAF Rules. In particular, the Panel is comfortably satisfied that the Trainer supplied at least Ms Stepanova with Prohibited Substances which he had in his Possession and gave her clear instructions when to take them and in what dosage in order to avoid detection in doping control tests.
The Trainer colluded with other highly ranked Athlete Support Personal, i.e. Mr Melnikov, to assist, encourage and abet athletes to commit anti-doping rule violations by taking prohibited substances. The Panel further considers that the Trainer has been involved in the doping practices over a long-time period, given that he participated at the meeting of 8 February 2013 and that he supplied various Prohibited Substances to Ms Stepanova on 10 November 2014.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 April 2017:
1.) The request filed by the IAAF with the Court of Arbitration for Sport against the All Russia Athletics Federation and Mr Vladimir Kazarin on 4 March 2016 is upheld.
2.) Mr Vladimir Kazarin committed anti-doping rule violations according to IAAF Rules 32.2 (f), (g) and (h) of the 2014 IAAF Rules.
3.) Mr Vladimir Kazarin is sanctioned with a lifetime period of ineligibility, starting on the date of this Award.
4.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne entirely by Mr Vladimir Kazarin.
5.) Mr Vladimir Kazarin is ordered to pay to the IAAF the amount of CHF 4,000 (four thousand Swiss Francs) as a contribution to the IAAF towards the legal fees and expenses incurred in relation with these proceedings.
6.) All other motions or requests for relief are dismissed.
