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 of allegations of systematic doping and evasion of doping controls by Russian athletes…………………………………......7 b. The WADA Independent Commission……………………………………………8 c. The WADA Independent Person Reports (the McLaren Reports)……………..9 d. The IOC Disciplinary Commission's Report to the IOC Executive Board (the Schmid Report)…..………………………...………………………………………...11 e. The IOC Disciplinary Commission……...……………………………………….13 2. Facts related to the Athlete ........................................................................................ 13 B. Proceedings against the Athlete before the IOC Disciplinary Commission .......... 13 III. Proceedings before the Court of Arbitration for Sport ........................................... 19 IV. Submissions of the Parties .......................................................................................... 23 A. The Athlete’s submissions .......................................................................................... 23 1. Issues common to the Sochi Appeals………………………………………………..23 a. The IOC DC's reasoning and general approach to the evidence………………23 b. The Sochi Appellants’ due process rights ......................................................... ..24 c. The burden and standard of proof ....................................................................... 25 d. The alleged ADRVs under the WADC ................................................................ 26 e. The evidence against the Sochi Appellants, Dr. Rodchenkov’s testimony ....... 27 f. Direct evidence regarding the commission of ADRVs by the Sochi Appellants ……………………….………………………………………………..………………29 g. Indirect evidence regarding ADRVs by the Sochi Appellants .......................... 30 (i) Scratch Marks……………………….……………..…………………….30 (ii) Salt Content……………...……………………………………..………..32 (iii) DNA Analysis………………………………………………...………….33 (iv) Duchess List.…………...………………………………………...……....34 (v) Prof. McLaren's Reports…………………………………….………….34 h. Appropriate Sanctions ......................................................................................... 35 2. Issues in the Athlete's appeal………………………………………………………..36 B. The Respondent’s submissions .................................................................................. 38 1. Issues common to the Sochi Appeals……………………………………………….38 a. Background to the alleged doping and cover-up scheme………………………..38 b. Forensic Evidence…………………………………………………………………42 CAS 2017/A/5422 Aleksandr Zubkov v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) – Page 3 (i) Scratch Marks…………………………………………………………….42 (ii) Salt Content………………………………………………………………43 (iii) DNA Analysis……………………………………………………………44 c. Dr. Rodchenkov’s Testimony ............................................................................... 45 d. Burden and Standard of Proof…………………………………………………..46 e. Tampering, Article 2.5 and 2.2 of the WADC .................................................... 49 f. Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance, Article 2.2 of the WADC ... 50 g. Cover-Up / Complicity, Article 2.8 of the WADC .............................................. 50 h. Due Process Rights ................................................................................................ 51 i. Sanctions ................................................................................................................ 52 2. Submissions as to the Athlete's appeal……………………………....…………...…53 V. Hearing ......................................................................................................................... 55 A. The Joint Hearing on the Sochi Appeals .................................................................. 58 1. Opening Statements.................................................................................................... 58 a. The Athlete…………………..…………………………………………………….58 b. The Respondent………………..…………………………………………………60 2. Evidentiary Proceedings……….………………………………………………........61 a. Factual Evidence……………..…………………………………………………...61 (i) Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov………………………………………….….....61 (ii) Prof. Richard McLaren………………………………………………….68 (iii) Evgeny Kudryavtsev…………………………..………………………...72 (iv) Yuri Chizhov……………………………...…………………………...…73 (v) Grigory Krotov……………………………..……………………………75 (vi) Maxim Verevkin……………………………...………………………….77 (vii) Andrey Knyazev……………………...…………………………………78 (viii) Thierry Boghossian………………………………………………….....79 b. Expert forensic evidence on bottle opening………………..……………………80 (i) Prof. Christophe Champod…………………………………….………..80 (ii) Report of the Swedish National Forensic Centre………………………89 (iii) Geoffrey Arnold…………………………………………...…………….90 (iv) Alexey Bushin and Evgeniya Burova……………………………….….93 c. Expert DNA evidence ............................................................................................ 95 (i) Dr. Vincent Castella………………………………………………………95 (ii) Dr. Susan Pope……………………………………………………………97 d. Expert evidence on salt content ......................................................................... 100 (i) Prof. Michael Burnier…………………………………..………………100 CAS 2017/A/5422 Aleksandr Zubkov v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) – Page 4 (ii) Dr. David M. Charytan………………………………...……………….107 e. Athlete specific testimony of Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov………………………..112 B. The Athlete’s Individual Hearing ........................................................................... 113 1. Testimony of the Athlete…………………………………………………………...113 2. Closing statements related to the Athlete………………………………………….115 a. The Athlete………………………………………..……………………………..115 b. The Respondent………………………………………..………………………..116 C. Final Pleadings .......................................................................................................... 116 1. The Athlete………………………………………………...………………………..116 2. The Respondent…………………………………………….………………………120 3. Closing of the Hearing……………………………………………………………...123 VI. Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................ 123 VII. Admissibility .............................................................................................................. 124 VIII. Applicable Law .......................................................................................................... 124 IX. Merits ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. A. Legal basis for determination of an individual ADRV ........................................ 125 1. Definition of ADRVs………………………………………………………….…….125 2. Burden, standard and means of proof…………………………………………….126 a. Burden of Proof, Art. 3.1 of the WADC………………………………………..126 b. Standard of Proof, Art. 3.1 of the WADC…………………………..………… 126 c. Means of Proof, Art. 3.2 of the WADC………………………….……….……..128 B. Commission of ADRVs by the Athlete………………………..……………………130 1. The Panel's Approach……………..……………………………………………….130 2. Use of a Prohibited Substance or Method, Art. 2.2 of the WADC………………131 a. Use of a Prohibited Method………………………………………………...…...132 (i) Prohibited Method: urine substitution………………………………...132 (ii) Commission of acts facilitating urine substitution………….…………133 (aa) Provision of clean urine……………………………………….135 (bb) Duchess List…………………………………………………...135 (cc) Deliberate limited closure of the sample bottles……………..137 (dd) Transmission of the Doping Control Form……………….….138 (iii) Sample-swapping………………………………………………………139 (aa) Multiple T marks indicative of bottle opening…..………….139 (bb) Elevated salt content ……………………………..…………..141 (cc) Mixed DNA indicative of bottle opening…………………..…144 (dd) Testimony of Dr. Rodchenkov specific to the Athlete………145 CAS 2017/A/5422 Aleksandr Zubkov v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) – Page 5 (iv) Conclusion on the use of a prohibited method……………………….145 b. Use of a Prohibited Substance…………………………………………..146 (i) Provision of clean urine…………………………………………………147 (ii) Duchess List………………………………………………………….….147 (iii) Deliberate limited closure of the sample bottles and transmission of the DCF……………………………………………………………………...147