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,