CAS 2016/O/4854 lnternational Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. Russian Athletic Federation (RusAF) & Mr. Alexandr Khiutte
Related case:
CAS 2016_O_4702 IAAF vs ARAF & Maksim Dyldin
January 6, 2017
- Athletics (track and field)
- Doping (etiocholanolone)
- CAS jurisdiction and applicable law according to Rule 38.3 IAAF ADR
- Presence of a prohibited substance
- Evading doping control
- Determination of the period of ineligibility
1. Where a national federation is suspended by IAAF, no entity has jurisdiction in the relevant country to conduct a hearing in a doping case. Against this background, pursuant to the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules (IAAF Rules), IAAF can take over the responsibility for coordinating the relevant disciplinary proceedings and to inform the athlete and its national federation that the case will be referred to the CAS for a hearing. In this regard, where the proceedings are based on a request for arbitration for the conduct of a first instance hearing and do not involve an appeal against a decision rendered by a sports-related body, they are considered as ordinary arbitration proceedings, within the meaning, and for the purposes, of the CAS Code. However, in accordance with Rule 38.3 of the IAAF Rules, these proceedings are handled in accordance with CAS rules applicable to the appeal arbitration procedure without reference to any time limit for appeal.
2. Rule 32.2(a) of the IAAF Rules recognizes a doping violation where a prohibited substance is detected in an athlete’s sample. Rules 32.2(a)(i) makes clear, that it is each athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his/her body. The rules impose a strict liability in the event that such substances are detected; accordingly, it is “not necessary” to establish any level of mens rea, such as intent, fault, negligence or knowing use. In light of the strict liability standard for the presence of prohibited substances imposed under the IAAF Rules, the athlete’s arguments with regard to his/her ignorance of the nature of the substances used, or his/her suggestion that fault lies with his/her coach cannot constitute relevant defences or mitigating factors.
3. Rule 32.2(c) of the IAAF Rules prohibits evading, refusing or failing to submit to sample collection. The rules does not cease to consider an attempted evasion of anti-doping controls as a doping violation merely because a sample is ultimately collected. For this reason, an attempted (or, successful) evasion does not cease to be one merely because the athlete returned to submit to testing hours after the fact. Such evasion, even if on the recommendation of a third party such as a coach, was committed knowingly, and with specific intent and therefore constitutes a violation under Rule 32.2(c).
4. Where no violations should constitute “second violations” for the purposes of Rule 40.8(d)(i) of the IAAF Rules, any sanction to be imposed shall be based on the violation carrying the “more severe sanction”. If an athlete admitted of having intentionally evaded testing, pursuant to the operation of Rule 40.4(a) of the IAAF Rules, such a violation of Rule 32.2(c) will carry a period of ineligibility of four years.
Mr Alexander Khiutte is a Russian track and field Athlete, specializing in 200- and 400-meter races.
On 22 May 2015, the athletics Doping Control Officer (the DCO) visited together with her assistant the Yunost Sports Complex in Adler (Russia) in order to test out-of-competition. The DCO reported that after notification the Athlete Alexander Khiutte ran away while being escorted by the DCO. Only several hours later the nervous Athlete cooperated and provided the samples to the DCO.
In June 2015 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported two anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for evading sample collection and tampering with and-doping controls. Also in August 2015 the IAAF reported a new anti-doping rule violation after the Athlete’s sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Etiocholanolone.
Because the All Russia Athletic Federation (ARAF) was suspended by the IAAF the case was referred in November 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 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for the anti-doping violations.
The Athlete had submitted an explanation in June 2015 for his behavior on 22 May 2015. However in his second submission in October 2015 he revoked his previous explanation and admitted that under pressure of his coach, Ms Zukra Vereshchagina, he had used substances and was instructed to run away in order to evade sample collection.
The Sole Arbitrator concludes that the evidence establishes that the Athlete committed the doping rule violations by using the prohibited substance and evading sample collection. He does not consider it necessary to consider the violation for tampering.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 April 2017 that:
1.) CAS has jurisdiction to hear this dispute and the claims submitted to it are admissible;
2.) Mr. Alexander Khiutte has violated Rules 32.2(a), 32.2(b), and 32.2(c) of the IAAF Rules;
3.) A period of ineligibility of four ( 4) years is imposed on Mr. Alexandr Khiutte commencing from 5 August 2015;
4.) All competitive results obtained by Mr. Alexandr Khiutte from 22 May 2015 through 4 August 2015, inclusive, are disqualified, with all attendant consequences (including forfeiture of medals, points and prizes);
5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne in their entirety by the Russian Athletics Federation, which shall bear its own costs.
6.) Mr. Alexander Khiutte shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay to the International Association of Athletics Federations the amount of CHF 3,000 (three thousand Swiss Francs) as a contribution toward the legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
7.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
