The case revolves around an appeal by Turkish athletics coach Cunyet Yuksel against a decision by the Turkish Athletics Federation (TAF) that held him automatically liable for an anti-doping violation committed by his athlete, Nevin Yanit. In February 2013, Yanit tested positive for a prohibited substance, leading to a two-year ineligibility sanction. The TAF Disciplinary Board also imposed an 18-month ineligibility period on Yuksel, citing automatic liability under TAF regulations unless he could prove he had taken reasonable care to prevent the violation. Yuksel appealed this decision, first to the Turkish Arbitration Board, which annulled the sanction and referred the case back to the Disciplinary Board. Concurrently, Yuksel filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the Disciplinary Board misapplied the principle of liability without fault and failed to conduct a proper factual investigation.
The CAS proceedings, conducted in English before a sole arbitrator, Judge James Robert Reid, proceeded without a response from TAF. The arbitrator ruled based on written submissions, focusing on whether the Disciplinary Board correctly applied the principle of automatic liability for coaches under anti-doping rules. The arbitrator found the Disciplinary Board’s approach flawed, as it imposed liability without adequately considering whether Yuksel had taken reasonable steps to prevent the violation. The arbitrator emphasized the necessity of a full factual investigation before establishing such liability.
The CAS annulled the Disciplinary Board’s decision due to its erroneous legal interpretation and incomplete factual assessment, referring the case back for re-evaluation under Article R57 of the CAS Code. The ruling highlighted that while international federations have primary authority in anti-doping matters, their disciplinary bodies must correctly apply legal principles and conduct thorough investigations before sanctioning support personnel. The case underscores the importance of due process and the need for clear evidence before holding coaches accountable for their athletes' doping violations.
Yuksel’s appeal also raised procedural and substantive issues, including the lack of evidence linking him to the violation and the athlete’s testimony exonerating him. The TAF did not substantively defend the original decision, arguing it was moot as it had been set aside for rehearing. The CAS panel reviewed the case under IAAF and TAF regulations, with Turkish law as a subsidiary, and criticized the Disciplinary Board for relying on assumptions rather than evidence. The panel noted that coaches should not be automatically penalized without proof of their role in violations, reflecting broader debates about accountability in sports governance.
The CAS found that the Disciplinary Board erred by shifting the burden of proof onto Yuksel to demonstrate his innocence, rather than requiring evidence of his complicity. While strict liability applies in certain cases, such as when a trainer unknowingly administers a banned substance, there was no evidence Yuksel provided or encouraged the use of prohibited substances. The Disciplinary Board also failed to properly investigate the facts, instead relying on the mere presence of multiple positive tests as indirect proof of Yuksel’s involvement. The CAS reviewed precedents cited by the Disciplinary Board but found them irrelevant or distinguishable, concluding the decision was flawed due to incorrect legal interpretation and insufficient factual examination.
Since TAF did not participate in the appeal, the CAS evaluated the case based solely on Yuksel’s arguments. While agreeing the decision should be annulled, the CAS declined to declare no violation had occurred, as the facts were not fully investigated. Instead, it referred the case back to the Disciplinary Board for reconsideration, stressing the need for proper legal and factual analysis. The CAS upheld Yuksel’s appeal, annulled the Disciplinary Board’s decision, and remanded the case for further review. The outcome emphasizes the importance of correctly applying liability principles in anti-doping cases and ensuring sanctions are based on evidence, not presumptions. The year 2013 was declared annulled, and all other related requests were dismissed.