The case involves Tatyana Chernova, a Russian heptathlete, appealing a decision by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) regarding a doping violation based on her Athlete Biological Passport (ABP). The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) initially ruled that Chernova violated IAAF Rule 32.2(b) due to irregularities in her ABP, leading to a suspension of three years and eight months starting from February 2016, along with the nullification of her results from August 2011 to July 2013. Chernova’s appeal focused on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the IAAF improperly referred the case directly to CAS instead of allowing a first-instance hearing by her national federation, the All Russian Athletics Federation (ARAF), which was suspended by the IAAF at the time.
The CAS panel examined the jurisdictional validity of the case and determined that under IAAF Rule 38.3, the IAAF had the authority to refer the matter directly to CAS for a first-instance hearing, particularly since ARAF was suspended and unable to conduct proceedings. The panel emphasized that the reference to CAS appeal arbitration rules in IAAF Rule 38.3 pertained only to procedural aspects, not jurisdiction, and that applying strict jurisdictional requirements would render the rule ineffective. The panel also noted that power imbalances in sports arbitration are inherent but justified by the need for uniformity in anti-doping enforcement, a stance supported by the Swiss Federal Tribunal.
The case stemmed from an ABP analysis indicating blood doping between 2009 and 2013, separate from an earlier positive test for oral turinabol in 2009, which was under a separate appeal. The IAAF assumed disciplinary responsibility due to ARAF’s suspension and notified Chernova of her right to a CAS hearing. Chernova contested the jurisdictional basis, but the panel upheld the CAS Sole Arbitrator’s authority, concluding that the IAAF’s referral was valid under its rules and that CAS had proper jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in the first instance. The panel’s decision affirmed the original sanctions while dismissing Chernova’s jurisdictional challenge.
Chernova’s arguments centered on whether CAS had jurisdiction to hear her case in the first instance. She contended that Rule 38.3 of the IAAF Rules does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement granting CAS jurisdiction, as it does not explicitly mention CAS. She also disputed that her counsel’s email of 19 February 2016, which referenced Rule 38.2 (a general right to a hearing), constituted an agreement to CAS jurisdiction. Chernova argued that the IAAF’s interpretation of Rules 38.3 and 38.19 was misleading and that her response was limited to Rule 38.2 only.
The IAAF, in response, asserted that CAS had jurisdiction due to the suspension of the Russian Athletics Federation (ARAF), which made it impossible to conduct a first-instance hearing in Russia. The IAAF argued that Article R47 of the CAS Code does not apply in this case, as the referral to CAS was not an appeal but a first-instance arbitration. It emphasized that Rule 38.3 of the IAAF Rules provides a valid arbitration agreement, allowing CAS to hear cases when a national federation fails to complete a hearing on time, regardless of the reason for the failure (including ARAF’s suspension). The IAAF also maintained that Chernova’s correspondence indicated her agreement to a CAS hearing.
The Panel concluded that Rule 38.3's requirements were met, as ARAF’s suspension made it impossible for the federation to conduct a hearing. The Panel also noted that the rule does not require an evaluation of the reasons behind a member federation’s inability to act, only that the inability exists. Additionally, the Panel found that correspondence between the parties demonstrated Chernova’s acquiescence to CAS jurisdiction, as her response to the IAAF’s letter indicated acceptance of CAS proceedings under the CAS Code. The Panel dismissed Chernova’s arguments that her reference to Rule 38.2 instead of Rule 38.3 or her disagreement with the IAAF’s interpretation undermined this agreement.
The ruling affirmed CAS’s jurisdiction over the case, emphasizing the extraordinary circumstances of ARAF’s suspension and the need for expedited adjudication in doping cases. The decision underscores the validity of arbitration agreements incorporated by reference and