DOCSLIB.ORG

CAS 2017/A/5444 Olga Zaytseva V. International Olympic Committee (IOC)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CAS 2017/A/5444 Olga Zaytseva V. International Olympic Committee (IOC) CAS 2017/A/5444 Olga Zaytseva v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by the COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT sitting in the following composition: President: Mr. Jacques Radoux, Legal Secretary at the European Court of Justice, Luxembourg Arbitrators: Prof. Philippe Sands Q.C., Barrister and Professor of Law, London, United Kingdom Prof. Petros C. Mavroidis, Professor of Law, Commugny, Switzerland in the arbitration between Ms. Olga Zaytseva, Russia Represented by Mr. Yvan Henzer, Attorney-at-Law with Libra Law, Lausanne Switzerland, as well as by Mr. Alexei Panich and Ms. Polina Pdoplelova, Attorneys-at-Law with Herbert Smith Freehills CIS LLP, Moscow, Russia Appellant and International Olympic Committee (IOC), Switzerland, Represented by Mr. Jean-Pierre Morand and Mr. Nicolas Français, Attorneys-at-Law with Kellerhals Carrard, Lausanne, Switzerland, and Ms. Tamara Soupiron, Legal Counsel, International Olympic Committee Respondent CAS 2017/A/5444 – Page 2 Table of Contents I. PARTIES ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS ........................................................ 3 A. BACKGROUND FACTS ................................................................................................................................ 3 a. General facts ........................................................................................................................................ 3 b. Specific facts related to the Athlete ...................................................................................................... 6 B. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION ................................................................... 6 III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT ............................. 10 IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES ................................................................................................... 13 A. THE ATHLETE’S SUBMISSIONS ................................................................................................................. 13 a. The so-called organised doping scheme ............................................................................................ 14 b. Absence of any AAF ........................................................................................................................... 14 c. The so-called “Duchess List” ............................................................................................................ 15 d. The marks found on the sample bottles .............................................................................................. 16 e. The sodium level in sample B2890589 ............................................................................................... 17 f. The alleged clean urine bank ............................................................................................................. 18 g. The allegations of Dr. Rodchenkov .................................................................................................... 19 h. Presence of mixed DNA profiles in one sample ................................................................................. 20 i. The Laboratory Information Management System (“LIMS”) ............................................................ 21 B. THE RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS .......................................................................................................... 23 a. The overarching doping and cover-up scheme .................................................................................. 23 b. The Appellant’s implication in the scheme ........................................................................................ 28 V. EVIDENTIARY PROCEEDINGS........................................................................................................... 36 A. FACTUAL EVIDENCE ................................................................................................................................ 36 B. FORENSIC EVIDENCE ............................................................................................................................... 50 C. EXPERT EVIDENCE ON SODIUM LEVEL ..................................................................................................... 57 VI. JURISDICTION ................................................................................................................................... 71 VII. ADMISSIBILITY ................................................................................................................................. 72 VIII. APPLICABLE LAW ............................................................................................................................ 72 IX. MERITS ................................................................................................................................................ 77 A. THE ALLEGED ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS .................................................................................... 77 B. DISCUSSION ON THE EVIDENCE CONSIDERED BY THE PANEL ................................................................... 78 a. The providing of clean urine .............................................................................................................. 79 b. The presence on the Duchess List and use of the Duchess Cocktail .................................................. 79 c. The deliberate limited closure of the sample bottles .......................................................................... 80 d. The transmission of the DCF by the Athlete or member of his entourage ......................................... 81 e. The LIMS ............................................................................................................................................ 82 f. The sample swapping ......................................................................................................................... 82 C. DECISION ON LIABILITY ........................................................................................................................... 86 D. SANCTIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 88 a. Disqualification of results .................................................................................................................. 88 b. Ineligibility for future editions of the Olympic Games ....................................................................... 91 X. COSTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 93 CAS 2017/A/5444 – Page 3 I. PARTIES 1. Ms. Olga Zaytseva (the “Athlete” or “Appellant”) is a retired Russian biathlete, who won a gold medal at the Turin Olympic Winter Games 2006 as well as a gold and silver at the Vancouver Olympic Winter Games 2010. At the XXII Olympic Winter Games which took place in Sochi, Russia, in 2014 (the “Sochi Games”), the Athlete participated in six competitions and won a silver medal in the Women’s 4x6 km relay on 21 February 2014. 2. The International Olympic Committee (the “IOC” or “Respondent”) is the world governing body of Olympic sport having its registered offices in Lausanne, Switzerland. The IOC is incorporated as an association pursuant to articles 60 et seq. of the Swiss Civil Code. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS 3. Below is a summary of the relevant facts and allegations based on the parties’ written and oral submissions, pleadings and evidence adduced. Additional facts and allegations found in the parties’ submissions, pleadings and evidence may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion that follows. While the Panel has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the parties in the present proceedings, it refers in its Award only to the submissions and evidence it considers necessary to explain its reasoning. A. Background Facts a. General facts 4. The Sochi Games took place between 7 and 23 February 2014. The Russian national team enjoyed significant success at the Sochi Games as Russian athletes ended up first in the overall medal table and won a total of 33 medals including 13 gold medals. 5. Following the television broadcast, on 3 December 2014, of a documentary concerning the alleged existence of an extensive secret, an state-sponsored doping programme within the All-Russia Athletics Federation (“ARAF”), the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) announced, on 16 December 2014, the appointment of an independent commission (the “Independent Commission”) to investigate the allegations as a matter of urgency. The Independent Commission, composed of Mr. Richard W. Pound QC, former President of WADA, Prof. Richard H. McLaren, CAS arbitrator and Professor of Law at Western University in Ontario, Canada, and Mr. Gunter Younger, Head of the Cybercrime Department at Bavarian Landeskriminalamt in Munich, Germany, was required to “conduct an independent investigation into doping practices; corrupt practices around sample collection and results management; and, other ineffective administration of anti-doping processes that implicate Russia, the International Association of Athletics Federations [the ‘IAAF’], athletes,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Probative Value of the Mclaren Report Confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) by Robert Neron, SDRCC Arbitrator
    The Probative Value of the McLaren Report Confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) by Robert Neron, SDRCC Arbitrator February 2018 The decisions rendered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne over the past 18 months were largely influenced by revelations of Russia's state-run doping scheme and suspension of Russian athletes. An in-depth investigation into the involvement of Russian athletes in doping activities was launched in December 2014 after German radio-television broadcaster ARD revealed a government-sponsored doping program in Russia reminiscent of former practices in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc during the Cold War. Following ARD’s broadcast and witness testimony from a former director of the Russian laboratory regarding systematic doping and cover-up attempts involving athletes competing in the 2014 Olympic Winter Games in Sochi,1 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appointed Richard McLaren, Professor of Law at Western University and member of the SDRCC’s inaugural roster, to chair an independent commission. The first part of McLaren’s findings, submitted in July 2016, provided substantive evidence of the systematic, state-sponsored manipulation of the doping control process2 that occurred before the 2014 Olympic Winter Games and continuing afterward in the run-up to the 2016 Olympic Summer Games in Rio. These findings prompted the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) to indefinitely suspend Russia from world athletics events. In addition, WADA announced that the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) should be considered in violation of WADA rules. WADA further recommended banning Russia entirely from the 2016 Olympic Games.
    [Show full text]
  • The Negative Implications of Russia's Doping Scandal on The
    http://dx.doi.org/10.18778/1427-9657.08.07 EASTERN REVIEW 2019, T. 8 Anna Kobierecka https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2492-6452 University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland Faculty of International Relations and Political Science e-mail: [email protected] Michał Marcin Kobierecki https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8180-5710 University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland Faculty of International Relations and Political Science e-mail: [email protected] The negative implications of Russia’s doping scandal on the country’s international image* Abstract. In December 2014, Russia was accused of developing a state-organized doping system in the second decade of the twenty-first century. The scandal resulted in many Russian athletes being banned from competing in the Olympics in Rio in 2016 and the IOC’s suspension of the Russian National Olympic Committee prior to the 2018 Winter Olympics in PyeongChang. The research presented in this article aims to answer the research question of whether the doping scandal actually affected the international image of Russia. The research was conducted with the use of frame analysis of public discourse. The hypothesis to be tested states that the Russian doping scandal contributed to the intensification of a negative external image of this state. Keywords: Russia, doping, sports diplomacy, nation branding, image of a country. * This work was supported by National Science Centre, Poland grant number 2015/19/D/ HS5/00513, grant holder: Michał Marcin Kobierecki). © by the author, licensee Łódź University – Łódź University Press, Łódź, Poland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 162 Anna Kobierecka, Michał Marcin Kobierecki Introduction Sports are believed to play various political roles, both in states’ internal policies and in international relations.
    [Show full text]
  • Doping in Olympic Sports and Rio 2016 Games
    Proceeding Supplementary Issue: Rio 2016 Olympic Games First Anniversary Special Edition. Olympic Studies Forum, 4-5 August 2017. Santa Úrsula University. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Laboratory performance: Doping in Olympic sports and Rio 2016 Games RANDEANTONY C. NASCIMENTO1,2,3,4 , AILTON FERNANDO S. DE OLIVEIRA1,2,3, JUAN JOSÉ FERNÁNDEZ ROMERO4,5, SARAH CRISTINA MONTES CANUTO1,2,3 1SCENARIOS / UFS Group, Brazil 2Research Center for Sports and Leisure Policies of Sergipe – CDPPEL, Brazil 3Federal University of Sergipe, Brazil 4University of La Coruña, Spain 5National Institute of Physical Education - INEF GALÍCIA, Spain ABSTRACT Doping is defined by the World Anti-Doping Agency Code as the use of substances or methods capable of artificially increasing sports performance, whether they are potentially harmful to athletes health or to his opponents, or to the game spirit. The Olympic Sport deals daily with this competitor “off the beaten track” of the highest competence. This article was based on the reports on the anti-doping control situation in the Olympic Games in Brazil issued by the specialist of the US Congressional Research Service, the IAAF sanctioned positive athletics report, of the International Olympic Committee that dealt with the fight against doping and health promotion of athletes, the Independent Observer Reports of the World Anti-Doping Agency and the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. A special highlight was the doping cases orchestrated by the Russia Athletic Federation, as well as the efforts of institutions responsible for the fight against doping in the protection of clean athletes. The fight against doping in the Olympic Games in Brazil was classified as the worst anti-doping in the history of games, based on the volunteers organization and the effectiveness of the tests performed.
    [Show full text]
  • DECISION IOC Disciplinary Commission
    DECISION of the IOC Disciplinary Commission sitting in the following composition: Denis Oswald, Chairman Juan Antonio Samaranch Tony Estanguet in the proceedings against Olga ZAYTSEVA born on 16 May 1978, Russian Federation, Athlete, Biathlon (SML-036) SML-036 TABLE OF CONTENT I. FACTS .. ........................................................................................................................................... 4 II. APPLICABLE RULES ...................................................................................................................... 9 Ill. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................. 13 A. MISSION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION ............................................................... 13 B. CONDUCT OF INDIVIDUAL PROCEEDINGS ...................................................................... 13 C. PROOF ................................................................................................................................... 14 D. THE EVIDENCE AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION ................... 15 a. Evidence obtained from Prof. Mclaren .......................................................................... 15 1. The Mclaren Report and the Affidavit from Prof. Mclaren .................................... 15 2. EDPs and Dossier of Evidence ............................................................................... 17 (i) Sochi Duchess List (EDP0055) ............................
    [Show full text]
  • Arbitral Award Court of Arbitration for Sport
    CAS 2016/A/4708 Belarus Canoe Association & Belarusian Senior Men’s Canoe and Kayak team members v. International Canoe Federation (ICF) ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by the COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT sitting in the following composition: President: Prof. Dr. Michael Geistlinger, Professor in Salzburg, Austria Arbitrators: Mr. Romano F. Subiotto Q.C., attorney-at-law in Brussels, Belgium, and London, United Kingdom Prof. Dr. Martin Schimke, attorney-at-law in Düsseldorf, Germany in the arbitration between Belarus Canoe Association, Minsk, Belarus Represented by Mr, Vasili Volozhinets, Danilevich Volozhinets Law Office, Minsk, Belarus & Belarusian Senior Men’s Canoe and Kayak team members, Minsk, Belarus Represented by Mr Jean-Marc Reymond, Reymond & Associés, Lausanne, Switzerland. Appellants and International Canoe Federation (ICF), Lausanne, Switzerland Represented by Mr Jorge Ibarrola and Mr Claude Ramoni, Libra Law Ibarrola & Ramoni, Lausanne, Switzerland Respondent CAS 2016/A/4708 – Page 2 I. PARTIES 1. The Belarus Canoe Association (“BCA”) is the national governing body for the sport of Canoe and Kayak in the Republic of Belarus with its headquarters in Minsk. It is affiliated to the International Canoe Federation. The BCA includes the members of the Belarusian senior men’s kayak team (Mr. Raman Piatrushenka, Mr. Vitaliy Bialko, Mr. Aleh Yurenia, Mr. Pavel Miadzvedzeu, Mr. Vadzim Makhneu, Mr. Taras Valko, Mr. Aliaksandr Liapeshka, Mr. Andrei Tsarykovich, Mr. Ihar Baicheuski, Mr. Ivan Tsuranau, Mr. Dzmitry Khilchanka, Mr. Spartak Bazhkou, Mr. Mikita Borykau, Mr. Stanislau Daineka, Mr. Dzimtry Tratsiakou), the Belarusian senior men’s canoe team (Mr. Aliaksandr Bahdanovich, Mr. Andrei Bahdanovich, Mr. Dzianis Harazha, Mr. Dzmitry Rabchanka, Mr. Dzmitry Vaitsishkin, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Annotated Version of the ONDCP Report
    OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT WITOLD BANKA 26 June 2020 The Honorable James W. Carroll Director Office of National Drug Control Policy Washington, D.C. Re.: ONDCP Report to the United States Congress Dear Mr. Carroll, Dear James, The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has long valued the U.S. as an important stakeholder that contributes significantly to WADA, to the fight against doping in sport in general and to the protection of American athletes. It is therefore with great disappointment that I read the ONDCP Report of 17 June to the U.S. Congress, regarding WADA Reform Efforts. Given that, during our 12 June telephone meeting, we discussed a renewed spirit of cooperation, I would have expected your office to have consulted us on the Report; or, at the very least, to have verified the factual veracity of the allegations being made against WADA. Instead, in the days before publication, you informed us of the impending Report and asked us to verify three paragraphs by a certain deadline; and, when we did so in good faith, you chose not to incorporate our clarifications. As the saying goes, ‘why let the truth get in the way of a good story’? Attached you will find an Executive Summary summarizing WADA’s views on the ONDCP Report; and, the Report itself with our annotations in red, which outline the misleading information and inaccuracies that the Report contains; and, what the Report omits in terms of factual information. I would kindly ask that you transmit this version to Congress without delay and that you let me know when this has been done.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Cyber Operations on Steroids
    August 19, 2016 Russian Cyber Operations on Steroids In Blog, Featured Article, Threat Research Russian Cyber Operations On Steroids ThreatConnect Identies FANCY BEAR Ties to World Anti-Doping Agency Phishing Read the full series of ThreatConnect posts following the DNC Breach: “Rebooting Watergate: Tapping into the Democratic National Committee [https://www.threatconnect.com/tapping-into- democratic-national-committee/] ”, “Shiny Object? Guccifer 2.0 and the DNC Breach [https://www.threatconnect.com/guccifer-2-0-dnc- breach/] “, “What’s in a Name Server? [https://www.threatconnect.com/whats-in-a-name-server/] “, “Guccifer 2.0: the Man, the Myth, the Legend? [https://www.threatconnect.com/reassesing-guccifer-2-0-recent- claims/] “, “Guccifer 2.0: All Roads Lead to Russia [https://www.threatconnect.com/guccifer-2-all-roads-lead-russia/] “, “FANCY BEAR Has an (IT) Itch that They Can’t Scratch [https://www.threatconnect.com/fancy-bear-it-itch-they-cant- scratch/] “, "Does a BEAR Leak in the Woods? [https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/does-a-bear-leak-in-the- woods/] ", "Russian Cyber Operations on Steroids [https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/fancy-bear-anti-doping- agency-phishing/] ", and "Can a BEAR Fit Down a Rabbit Hole? [https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/state-board-election-rabbit- hole/] ". On August 15, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) alerted stakeholders [https://m.paralympic.org/news/wada-warns-stakeholders- phishing-scams] to phishing emails that used domains spoong the WADA’s legitimate domain, wada-ama.org. WADA conrmed [https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2016-08/wada-conrms- illegal-activity-on-yuliya-stepanovas-adams-account] that some users had received illegitimate credential harvesting e-mails that look as though they came from the WADA.
    [Show full text]
  • November 2018 IPC Taskforce Progress Report
    IPC Taskforce: Progress Report, November 2018 This report is provided on behalf of the IPC Taskforce and summarises our assessment of the progress that the Russian Paralympic Committee (RPC) has made to date in meeting the conditions for reinstatement established by the IPC. Specific reference is made to the decision by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to reinstate RUSADA (the Russian Federation’s National Anti-Doping Organisation). Background and context 1. This Taskforce was established1 in late 2016 by the IPC Governing Board to assist the IPC in determining whether the reinstatement criteria and underlying verification criteria, as agreed by the Governing Board, have been met by the RPC following its suspension as a member immediately prior to the Rio 2016 Paralympic Games. 2. Subsequent to the decision by the Executive Committee of WADA2 to formally reinstate RUSADA, the Taskforce has considered how WADA’s decision impacts on the reinstatement criteria agreed by the Governing Board. Outstanding requirements 3. As discussed by the Governing Board at its meeting on 11 September 2018, for the IPC reinstatement criteria to be met in full the following must be completed: (a) The full reinstatement of RUSADA by WADA3. 1 The Taskforce Terms of Reference are set out in Appendix 1 of the reinstatement criteria, available at https://www.paralympic.org/sites/default/files/document/161121134559873_2016_11_21%2BRPC%2Brein statement%2Bcriteria.pdf. 2 WADA’s decision can be found at https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-09/wada-executive- committee-decides-to-reinstate-rusada-subject-to-strict-conditions. 3 Reinstatement Criteria 6.2 - The RPC, IPC, International Federations that are members of the IPC, and RUSADA (once RUSADA has been declared Code-compliant again) are all able to carry out their respective anti- doping activities in Russia and in relation to Russian Para athletes and athlete support personnel effectively and without external interference (as part of this, the RPC will need to adequately address the findings of the McLaren Report).
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Mutko 'Barred from FIFA Post'
    Mourinho eyes progress despite Chelsea date SATURDAY, MARCH 11, 2017 MARCH 11, SATURDAY, SportsSports 47 KAZAN: In this Nov. 26, 2016 file photo FIFA President Gianni Infantino, right, and Vitaly Mutko, Russia’s deputy prime minister in charge of sport, tourism and youth policies, arrive for a news briefing ahead of the draw for the soccer Confederations Cup 2017, in Kazan, Russia. Russia World Cup head Mutko has been barred from seeking re-election to FIFA’s top decision- making body after failing an eligibility check because of his role as a deputy prime minister of Russia.— AP Russia’s Mutko ‘barred from FIFA post’ ZURICH: FIFA has barred Russian deputy prime minister Vitaly occupies and so the possible interference and conflicts of inter- as head of Russia’s 2018 World Cup organising committee. He is Mutko, chief organiser of the World Cup to be held in his coun- est,” the source told AFP. FIFA’s ethics code prohibits political also head of the Russian federation. “That is not part of FIFA’s try next year, from sitting on the world body’s ruling council, a interference in football affairs and the world body has in the jurisdiction,” the source said. source close to FIFA told AFP yesterday. past suspended national federations where governments have Mutko, who has also been accused of involvement in Russia’s been judged to have taken control. NEW UEFA RACE sports doping scandal, is one of five European candidates for The 55-member UEFA will choose its FIFA representatives at seats on the FIFA Council to be decided in April.
    [Show full text]
  • Arbitral Award Court of Arbitration for Sport
    CAS 2017/A/5422 Aleksandr Zubkov v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by the COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT sitting in the following composition: President: Prof. Dr. Christoph Vedder, Law Professor in Munich, Germany Arbitrators: Dr. Hamid G. Gharavi, Attorney-at-Law in Paris, France Dr. Dirk-Reiner Martens, Attorney-at-Law in Munich, Germany Ad hoc Clerk: Mr. Edward Craven, Barrister in London, United Kingdom in the arbitration between Aleksandr Zubkov, Russia Represented by Mr. Philippe Bärtsch and Mr. Christopher Boog, Attorneys-at-Law with Schellenberg Wittmer LLP in Geneva, Switzerland Appellant and International Olympic Committee, Switzerland Represented by Mr. Jean-Pierre Morand, Mr. David Casserly, and Mr. Nicolas Français, Attorneys-at-Law with Kellerhals Carrard in Lausanne, Switzerland, and Ms. Tamara Soupiron, Legal Counsel, International Olympic Committee Respondent CAS 2017/A/5422 Aleksandr Zubkov v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) – Page 2 Table of Contents I. Parties ............................................................................................................................. 7 II. Factual Background ...................................................................................................... 7 A. Background Facts ......................................................................................................... 7 1. Facts Common to the Sochi Appeals .......................................................................... 7 a. The Sochi Games and the emergence
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Committee Meeting Minutes, September 21, 2016
    Minutes of the WADA Executive Committee Meeting 21 September 2016, Lausanne, Switzerland The meeting began at 9.00 a.m. 1. Welcome, roll call and observers THE CHAIRMAN welcomed the members to the WADA Executive Committee meeting held in the splendid surroundings of the home of the Association of National Olympic Committees, ANOC, in Lausanne. When he walked around and looked at the offices, he was very envious of the quality of the office accommodation. It was very different to his little office at home. He welcomed two new faces to the table, first of all, Mr Mizuochi of Japan, who had taken over as State Minister for Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (just a small and easy portfolio), and, representing Mr Kaloko from Africa, Mr Machacha Shepande, who had been present the previous day at the think tank. He had to record that he missed and grieved for a great man, the WADA Vice-President, Dr Stofile. His career in life and in sport had been outstanding in every possible way. He had been a great supporter of WADA. When he had left his diplomatic position in Germany, he had gone home and had immediately gone back into service in his country at a university in South Africa. WADA missed Dr Stofile enormously, and he asked that everybody stand for a moment in his memory. THE CHAIRMAN thanked Ms Lindberg, the Secretary General of ANOC, for hosting WADA in the ANOC facilities. MS LINDBERG wished the members a successful meeting. There was full attendance. He had the attendance sheet, which he would pass to his right for the members to sign.
    [Show full text]
  • The Russian Doping Scandal: Protecting Whistleblowers and Combating Fraud in Sports
    115th CONGRESS Printed for the use of the 2nd Session Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe The Russian Doping Scandal: Protecting Whistleblowers and Combating Fraud in Sports FEBRUARY 22, 2018 Briefing of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe Washington: 2018 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:07 Jul 25, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 3191 Sfmt 3191 X:\_HS\WORK\29393.TXT NINA CSCESeal.EPS Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 234 Ford House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 202–225–1901 [email protected] http://www.csce.gov @HelsinkiComm Legislative Branch Commissioners HOUSE SENATE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, NEW JERSEY ROGER WICKER, MISSISSIPPI, Co-Chairman Chairman ALCEE L. HASTINGS, FLORIDA BENJAMIN L. CARDIN. MARYLAND ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, ALABAMA JOHN BOOZMAN, ARKANSAS MICHAEL C. BURGESS, TEXAS CORY GARDNER, COLORADO STEVE COHEN, TENNESSEE MARCO RUBIO, FLORIDA RICHARD HUDSON, NORTH CAROLINA JEANNE SHAHEEN, NEW HAMPSHIRE RANDY HULTGREN, ILLINOIS THOM TILLIS, NORTH CAROLINA SHEILA JACKSON LEE, TEXAS TOM UDALL, NEW MEXICO GWEN MOORE, WISCONSIN SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, RHODE ISLAND Executive Branch Commissioners DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [II] (2) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:07 Jul 25, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 3193 Sfmt 3193 X:\_HS\WORK\29393.TXT NINA ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE The Helsinki process, formally titled the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, traces its origin to the signing of the Helsinki Final Act in Finland on August 1, 1975, by the leaders of 33 European countries, the United States and Canada.
    [Show full text]