The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) between the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the All Russia Athletics Federation (ARAF) along with coach Vladimir Mokhnev. The IAAF accused Mokhnev of multiple anti-doping rule violations, including possession, trafficking, and administration of prohibited substances. The case arose due to the suspension of ARAF's IAAF membership, which prevented it from conducting a hearing within the required timeframe, allowing the IAAF to refer the matter directly to CAS under Rule 38.3 of the IAAF Rules. The panel, led by sole arbitrator Hans Nater, confirmed that coaches fall under the definition of "athlete support personnel" and are subject to the same rules as athletes, particularly when acting at an international level.
The procedural aspects of the case were governed by the regulations in force at the time of the proceedings, while substantive issues were assessed under the IAAF Rules applicable at the time of the alleged violations. The panel had broad discretion in admitting evidence, including witness statements and covert recordings, under Rule 33(3) of the IAAF Rules, which allows violations to be proven by "any reliable means." The admissibility of covert recordings was justified by the public interest in combating doping, especially in cases involving systematic doping practices supported by coaches and institutions.
The evidence, including testimony from athlete Yuliya Stepanova and recordings, established that Mokhnev had committed multiple violations, including possession, trafficking, and administration of prohibited substances. Under IAAF rules, these violations were treated as a single first offense, with the sanction based on the most severe violation—trafficking and administration, which carry penalties ranging from four years to a lifetime ban. The panel considered aggravating circumstances, noting that coaches bear significant responsibility due to their influence over athletes. While a lifetime ban was deemed justifiable in extreme cases, the panel determined that Mokhnev's violations, though serious, did not warrant such a sanction.
The decision underscores the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations, particularly against athlete support personnel, and highlights the balance between procedural fairness and the broader public interest in maintaining clean sport. The ruling reinforces the principle that those in positions of authority within athletics must adhere to the highest standards of integrity.
The case highlights the systemic doping issues in Russian athletics and the role of whistleblowers like Stepanova in exposing such practices. It also underscores the procedural steps taken by international sports bodies to address anti-doping violations, including provisional suspensions, investigations, and arbitration before CAS. The outcome of the case would determine the sanctions imposed on Mokhnev, reflecting the broader efforts to uphold integrity in sports.
The Sole Arbitrator examined the legality and reliability of the recordings, noting that Ms. Stepanova acted independently as a whistleblower without provocation or financial incentive. The arbitrator referenced Swiss law and CAS jurisprudence, which grant tribunals broad discretion in evidence assessment, limited only by procedural public policy and the parties' rights. The IAAF Rules allow anti-doping violations to be proven by "any reliable means," including covert recordings if their probative value outweighs any rights infringement. The arbitrator concluded that the recordings were admissible as reliable evidence, provided they were not illegally obtained, and emphasized the need to balance truth-seeking against privacy rights.
The Sole Arbitrator found the coach guilty of possession, trafficking, and administration of prohibited substances but dismissed the tampering charges due to insufficient evidence. The violations were considered together as a single first violation, with the sanction based on the most severe offense. The Sole Arbitrator imposed a 10-year ineligibility period on the coach, effective from the date of the award, with no credit for the provisional suspension. The ruling emphasizes the need for deterrence and the higher standards expected of athlete support personnel in maintaining anti-doping integrity.
The case underscores the complexities of anti-doping enforcement and the challenges in adjudicating disputes involving athlete support personnel. The final decision highlights the seriousness of the allegations and the need for stringent sanctions to uphold the integrity of sports. The arbitrator's decision will hinge on the evidence presented and adherence to the governing rules, reinforcing the principle that those in positions of authority within athletics must adhere to the highest standards of integrity.