The case involves Russian boxer Misha Aloyan appealing against the International Olympic Committee (IOC) regarding the disqualification of his results and the withdrawal of his silver medal from the 2016 Rio Olympics due to an anti-doping rule violation. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on the matter, emphasizing the automatic disqualification of results under the IOC Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). The panel, composed of Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, Mrs. Rabab Yasseen, and The Hon. Michael Beloff QC, highlighted that Swiss law requires an objective interpretation of sports association rules, starting with the wording of the rule itself. Article 9 of the IOC ADR mandates automatic disqualification of individual results following an anti-doping rule violation, leaving no room for discretion. The term "automatic" implies a necessary consequence without flexibility, as the disqualification reinstates an objective condition rather than acting as a sanction.
Aloyan tested positive for Tuaminoheptane, a prohibited stimulant, during the final match. He waived his right to analyze the B sample, and the IOC sought his disqualification, including the return of his medal, diploma, and medallist pin. Aloyan argued that his silver medal, won in the semi-final, should not be withdrawn because the violation occurred during the final. However, the panel rejected this, stating that medals are awarded only after the competition concludes, meaning disqualification from the final inherently results in the loss of any medal earned in earlier rounds.
Aloyan admitted to the violation but contested the automatic disqualification, arguing that the substance did not enhance his performance and that he had no fault or negligence. He cited previous cases where exceptions were made, such as the IOC's decision in the Nicklas Backstrom case and WADA's stance on meldonium, to support his claim that disqualification is not always mandatory. The IOC countered that Article 9 is not a sanction but a retroactive eligibility condition, designed to avoid case-by-case debates over performance advantages. They emphasized that discretion should only apply where the rules explicitly allow it.
The panel deferred consideration of whether Aloyan's circumstances warranted an exception until resolving the broader issue of whether Article 9 allows any discretion. The panel concluded that the wording of Article 9 was clear and unambiguous, leaving no room for exceptions. The term "automatic" was interpreted to mean that disqualification follows necessarily from an anti-doping violation, without any discretionary evaluation of mitigating circumstances. The panel rejected Aloyan's argument that his case was unique enough to warrant an exception, stating that the rule's strict application was essential to maintaining the integrity of anti-doping regulations.
The ruling underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where the presence of a prohibited substance leads to automatic disqualification regardless of the athlete’s intent or the substance’s performance-enhancing effects. The panel acknowledged the personal and reputational consequences for Aloyan but maintained that the strict application of the rules was necessary to preserve fairness in sports. The appeal was dismissed, and the disqualification of Aloyan's results was upheld. The panel explicitly stated that this decision does not label the athlete as a cheater but simply enforces the automatic consequences of the anti-doping violation. The case highlights the balance between enforcing anti-doping regulations and considering individual circumstances, with the principle of proportionality serving as a key consideration in such disputes. The outcome reinforces the stringent enforcement of anti-doping rules to ensure fairness and integrity in elite sports.