CAS 2017/A/5434 Olga Vilukhina V. International Olympic Committee (IOC)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CAS 2017/A/5434 Olga Vilukhina 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 Vilukhina, 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/5434 – 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 ............................... 9 IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES ................................................................................................... 12 A. THE ATHLETE’S SUBMISSIONS ................................................................................................................. 12 a. The so-called organised doping scheme ............................................................................................ 13 b. Absence of any AAF ........................................................................................................................... 14 c. The so-called “Duchess List” ............................................................................................................ 14 d. The marks found on the sample bottles .............................................................................................. 15 e. The alleged clean urine bank ............................................................................................................. 16 f. The allegations of Dr. Rodchenkov .................................................................................................... 17 g. The Laboratory Information Management System (“LIMS”) ............................................................ 18 B. THE RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS .......................................................................................................... 19 a. The overarching doping and cover-up scheme .................................................................................. 20 b. The Appellant’s implication in the scheme ........................................................................................ 25 V. EVIDENTIARY PROCEEDINGS........................................................................................................... 31 A. FACTUAL EVIDENCE ................................................................................................................................ 31 B. FORENSIC EVIDENCE ............................................................................................................................... 42 VI. JURISDICTION ................................................................................................................................... 49 VII. ADMISSIBILITY ................................................................................................................................. 50 VIII. APPLICABLE LAW ............................................................................................................................ 51 IX. MERITS ................................................................................................................................................ 55 A. THE ALLEGED ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS .................................................................................... 55 B. DISCUSSION ON THE EVIDENCE CONSIDERED BY THE PANEL ................................................................... 56 a. The providing of clean urine .............................................................................................................. 57 b. The presence on the Duchess List and use of the Duchess Cocktail .................................................. 57 c. The deliberate limited closure of the sample bottles .......................................................................... 58 d. The transmission of the DCF by the Athlete or member of his entourage ......................................... 59 e. The LIMS ............................................................................................................................................ 59 f. The sample swapping ......................................................................................................................... 60 C. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................... 61 X. COSTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 62 CAS 2017/A/5434 – Page 3 I. PARTIES 1. Ms. Olga Vilukhina (the “Athlete” or “Appellant”) is a retired Russian biathlete, who won three gold, two silver and two bronze medals at World Cups from 2011 to 2014. She also won the bronze medal in the 4x6 km relay at the European Championship 2010 in Otepää and the bronze medal in the 7.5 km sprint at the World Championship 2012 in Ufa. At the XXII Olympic Winter Games which took place in Sochi, Russia, in 2014 (the “Sochi Games”), the Athlete participated in five competitions and won a silver medal both in the Women’s 7,5 km Sprint on 9 February and 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, coaches, trainers, doctors and other members of athletes’ entourages; as well as, the accredited laboratory based in Moscow and the Russian Anti-Doping Agency [the ‘RUSADA’]”. CAS 2017/A/5434 – Page 4 6. On 9 November 2015, the Independent Commission delivered its final report (the “IC Report”) which contained a detailed account of the Independent Commission’s findings concerning “systemic failures within the IAAF and Russia that prevent or diminish the possibility of an effective anti-doping program, to the extent that neither ARAF, RUSADA, nor the Russian Federation can be considered Code-compliant”. 7. On 19 May 2016, WADA announced that it had appointed