CAS 2016/A/4487 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. Alexey Melnikov
Related cases:
- CAS 2016_A_4480 IAAF vs ARAF & Vladimir Kazarin
April 7, 2017 - CAS 2016_A_4486 IAAF vs Ekaterina Poistogova
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
- Athletics
- Doping violations committed by a coach
- CAS jurisdiction according to IAAF Rule 38.19
- Applicable law
- Admissibility of the evidence establishing doping violation
- Establishment of the violation of “Administration”
- Determination of the applicable sanction in light of aggravating circumstances (lifetime ban)
1. According to IAAF Rule 38.19, cases asserting anti-doping rule violations may be heard directly by CAS with no requirement for a prior hearing, with the consent of 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. With regard procedural issues, pursuant to IAAF Rule 38.3, 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 substantive aspects of the procedure are to be governed by the IAAF Rules in force at the time of the alleged violations applicable among other to Athlete Support Personnel whose definition includes coaches.
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), recordings should be considered as reliable means 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. Such is the case where the recordings could not have been obtained with the consent of those being recorded; the recordings where made by a whistle blower in order to denounce widespread doping practices in athletics in one specific country; the interest in discerning the truth concerning the doping practices in the relevant country was of the outmost importance given that doping constitutes a threat to the values that competitive sport stands for; and finally the fight against doping is of public interest.
4. Based on the evidence i.e. the recordings made by an athlete, it can be established that a coach who cannot be said to have personally provided Prohibited Substances to athletes but who nevertheless clearly orchestrated, encouraged, assisted and aided and abetted athletes and their trainers to commit anti-doping rule violations should be considered guilty of “administration” of prohibited method or substance in the sense of Rule 32.2(h) of the 2014 IAAF Rules read in light of the definition provided by the 2016 IAAF Rules.
5. 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 of “administration” of prohibited method or substance, 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, considering the influence they usually exert on their athletes. The fact that the coach committed multiple offences, made no admission of liability (at least not purposely), showed no remorse for his actions, provided no assistance to the anti-doping authorities, encouraged a culture in national athletics whereby athletes felt compelled to dope in order to compete and colluded with doctors and gave instructions to trainers to further the doping culture in national athletics, constitutes aggravating circumstances. Thus, the coach’s offence should result in the highest possible sanction. A lifetime period of ineligibility can be considered both justifiable and proportionate even if the ban is imposed for a first violation.
Mr Alexey Melnikov is a Russian senior coach of the Russian national athletics team.
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 Statements) and also wth the statement from Ms Liliya Shobukhova the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported in August 2015 an anti-doping rule violation against Alexey Melnikov (the Coach) for his involvement over a course of years in a doping scheme together with Dr Sergei Portugalov. In particular the Coach referred athletes to Dr Portugalov in full knowledge of the fact that the latter was providing them prohibited substances.
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 Coach with aggravating circumstances for Administration. The IAAF argued that the Coach:
- facilitated the use of prohibited substances by athletes;
- was actively involved in blood doping practices;
- set up with Dr Portugalov a system of internal doping controls in order to monitor athletes’ values and avoid detection;
- used his positon and connections to influence the doping control processes;
- was a key player, if not the key player, in a pervasive scheme of doping of elite Russian athletes.
The Coach asserted that the Stepanova Statement was a short narration of alleged conversations along with some unfounded allegations. He contended that the recordings and excerpts of transcripts relied upon by the IAAF do not constitute strong evidence or even clear and convincing evidence of Administration or Attempted Administration of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method. In his opinion the athletes Shobukhova and Stepanova are well known liars, cheaters and dopers; the recordings adduced by the IAAF were illegal and as evidence inadmissible.
The CAS Panel comes to the conclusion that the recordings of Ms Stepanova's conversations are admissible as evidence in the proceedings at hand and finds that the Coach 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 finds the Coach’s testimony unreliable.
The Panel concludes that the Coach, even though he cannot be said to have personally provided Prohibited Substances to athletes, clearly orchestrated, encouraged, assisted and aided and abetted athletes and their trainers to commit anti-doping rule violations.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 7 April 2017 that:
1.) The request for arbitration filed with the Court of Arbitration for Sport by the IAAF against Mr Alexey Melnikov on 8 March 2016 is upheld.
2.) Mr Alexey Melnikov committed an anti-doping rule violation according to IAAF Rule 32.2(h).
3.) Mr Alexey Melnikov 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 in their entire amount by Mr Alexey Melnikov.
5.) Mr Alexey Melnikov shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the IAAF the amount of CHF 4,000 (four thousand Swiss Francs) as a contribution towards the legal fees and expenses incurred in relation with these proceedings.
6.) All other motions or requests for relief are dismissed.
