The case involves Anna Knyazeva-Shirokova, a Russian middle-distance runner, appealing a decision by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) regarding a violation of the Prohibited Association Rule under the Russian Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). The dispute centered on her association with a coach, Vladimir Kazarin, who had been banned for life due to anti-doping violations. The key issue was whether Knyazeva-Shirokova had been properly informed of the coach's disqualifying status and the consequences of associating with him, as required by Article 2.10 of the Russian ADR. The Sole Arbitrator, Mr. Vladimir Novak, emphasized that under Swiss law, clear legal provisions must be interpreted literally unless ambiguity necessitates a broader analysis. The Prohibited Association Rule explicitly requires that an athlete must have been previously advised in writing by an anti-doping agency about the support person's disqualifying status and the potential consequences of prohibited association, and the athlete must have had the ability to reasonably avoid the association.
RUSADA bore the burden of proving the violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, considering the seriousness of the allegation. The case also addressed the possibility of deciding the matter ex aequo et bono (based on fairness rather than strict legal principles) if both parties agreed, as per Article R58 of the CAS Code. The factual background revealed that Knyazeva-Shirokova began training with Kazarin in 2017, unaware of his ban at the time. She later learned of his disqualification but continued the association, believing she could train with him unofficially. In July 2018, she signed an acknowledgment form referencing RusAF's Order 37, which listed disqualified coaches, including Kazarin, and warned of potential violations. Despite this, she attended a training camp with him in late 2018. RUSADA investigated but did not initially record the association.
In January 2019, Knyazeva-Shirokova discussed the issue with Kazarin but continued training with him due to perceived financial and career pressures. RUSADA formally charged her in June 2019, marking the first explicit communication about the Prohibited Association Rule's implications. The case underscores the importance of clear communication from anti-doping agencies to athletes regarding prohibited associations and the consequences thereof. The arbitrator's decision hinged on whether RUSADA met its burden of proof in demonstrating that Knyazeva-Shirokova had been adequately informed and could have avoided the association. The outcome highlights the balance between enforcing anti-doping regulations and ensuring athletes receive fair notice of their obligations.
The document outlines the procedural timeline and key arguments in the case, including extensions granted for filing submissions and the conduct of a virtual hearing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Appellant’s arguments centered on the claim that she had not received proper written notice of her coach’s disqualification status, as required by Article 2.10 of the ADR. She contended that the acknowledgment form she signed in July 2018 did not constitute valid written notice, as it referenced an order issued by RusAF, which she argued was not an anti-doping organization under the ADR. She also sought compensation for alleged violations of her rights, including intimidation and confidentiality breaches by RUSADA. The Respondent, RUSADA, maintained that the Appellant was adequately informed about the prohibited associations through the acknowledgment form, which referenced Order 37. They argued that the key element for an ADR violation under Article 2.10 is the athlete's knowledge of the disqualification and subsequent association, not the method of notification.
The Sole Arbitrator concluded that RUSADA did not meet the advance written notification requirement under Article 2.10 of the ADR, which mandates informing the athlete about the coach’s disqualification and the consequences of prohibited association. The arbitrator found that the questionnaire sent by RUSADA to the appellant in November 2018 did not fulfill this requirement, as it merely sought factual verification without explaining the rule or its implications. Although the appellant admitted to providing false answers in the questionnaire due to intimidation by the coach, this did not change the fact that RUSADA failed to meet the notification standard. Consequently, the arbitrator ruled that RUSADA did not establish a violation of Article 2.10 of the ADR.
Additionally, the appellant raised concerns about procedural irregularities, alleging that R