The case involves Russian cross-country skier Alexander Legkov, who was provisionally suspended by the International Ski Federation (FIS) following allegations of doping violations linked to the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. The suspension was based on evidence from the McLaren Report, which detailed a state-sponsored doping scheme in Russia, including sample tampering and urine substitution to conceal positive test results. Legkov challenged the suspension, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and violated his rights to due process and the presumption of innocence. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel, composed of Prof. Jan Paulsson, Mr. Nicholas Stewart QC, and The Hon. Michael Beloff QC, examined the legal standards for provisional suspensions under FIS Anti-Doping Rules (ADR).
The panel clarified that provisional suspensions require a "reasonable possibility" of an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV), a lower threshold than the "comfortable satisfaction" standard used in final adjudications. This standard demands individualized suspicion but does not require proof on a balance of probabilities. Under Article 7.9.2 FIS ADR, a provisional suspension can be imposed if there is reasonable suspicion, but the federation must present substantive evidence, not unsubstantiated claims. To lift a suspension, Article 7.9.3.2 FIS ADR sets a higher burden, requiring the athlete to demonstrate either a lack of fault or negligence, no reasonable prospect of an ADRV being upheld, or other facts making the suspension clearly unfair.
The McLaren Report implicated Legkov through forensic evidence of tampering with his sample bottles and his inclusion in lists of athletes allegedly benefiting from the doping scheme, such as the "Duchess List" and the "Medals-by-Day List." Legkov contested the reliability of this evidence, questioning the credibility of key witness Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov and the lack of direct proof of his personal involvement. He also highlighted his clean testing history and argued that the suspension violated his fundamental rights under Swiss law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The panel rejected Legkov's argument that his presumption of innocence was violated, noting that provisional suspensions are interim measures, not punitive, and do not equate to a formal finding of guilt. It found that the McLaren Report, combined with circumstantial evidence, provided sufficient grounds for a provisional suspension under Article 7.9.2. However, the panel ruled that indefinite suspensions are disproportionate, granting Legkov legal certainty by limiting his provisional suspension to 10 months, expiring on 31 October 2017 unless new evidence justified an extension.
The decision balanced the need for anti-doping enforcement with the athlete’s rights, ensuring procedural fairness while addressing the serious allegations raised by the McLaren Report. The panel’s analysis underscored the provisional nature of such suspensions and the importance of applying legal standards appropriately in anti-doping cases. The case highlights the challenges of addressing systemic doping while ensuring fair treatment of individual athletes, particularly when evidence is circumstantial or derived from broader investigations. The panel’s ruling aimed to protect the integrity of sports competitions while safeguarding the rights of athletes under provisional suspensions.