The case involves Andrey Isaychev, a Russian middle-distance runner, appealing against a decision by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) regarding an alleged violation of the Prohibited Association Rule under Article 2.10 of the Russian Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) rendered its award on April 6, 2021, with Mr. Vladimir Novak serving as the sole arbitrator. The dispute centered on whether Isaychev had violated the rule by associating with a coach, Vladimir Kazarin, who was serving a lifetime ban for anti-doping violations. The key legal principles addressed included the interpretation of Swiss law, which governs CAS proceedings, and the requirement for clear and unambiguous provisions in anti-doping rules. The arbitrator emphasized that if a provision is unambiguous, its literal meaning must be followed, and only in cases of ambiguity should other interpretive methods be employed.
For Article 2.10 of the Russian ADR to apply, RUSADA needed to demonstrate that Isaychev had been previously advised in writing of the coach’s disqualifying status and the consequences of prohibited association, and that the athlete could reasonably avoid such association. RUSADA bore the burden of proof, requiring it to establish the violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel. The factual background revealed that Isaychev had trained with Kazarin since 2014, even after the coach received a lifetime ban in 2017. In July 2018, Isaychev signed an acknowledgment form referencing RusAF’s Order 37, which listed disqualified personnel, including Kazarin. However, it was disputed whether Isaychev fully understood the implications. Later, in 2018, Isaychev attended a training camp in Kyrgyzstan where Kazarin was present. Although Isaychev attempted to terminate the association, he faced pressure from the coach and later resumed training under him. RUSADA’s investigation noted Kazarin’s presence at the camp but lacked recorded evidence.
The Prohibited Association Rule, introduced in the 2015 WADA Code, prohibits athletes from associating with banned support personnel. The rule requires prior written notice to the athlete about the personnel’s status and the consequences of association. The arbitrator concluded that RUSADA failed to meet its burden of proof, as it did not sufficiently demonstrate that Isaychev had been properly informed of the prohibition and its consequences before the alleged violation. The decision was rendered ex aequo et bono, meaning it was based on fairness, as agreed by the parties. The case underscores the importance of clear communication and due process in enforcing anti-doping regulations.
Isaychev appealed the decision to CAS, filing his statement of appeal on April 15, 2020. He requested consolidation with two other related cases, but this was denied as they involved different decisions. The proceedings involved multiple procedural steps, including requests for document production and extensions for filing submissions. The parties agreed to have the same sole arbitrator handle all three cases. The hearing was conducted via videoconference due to COVID-19 restrictions. During the hearing, Isaychev presented witnesses, while RUSADA chose not to call any witnesses. The Appellant’s arguments centered on the claim that he was not properly notified in writing by an anti-doping organization about the coach’s disqualifying status, as required by Article 2.10 of the ADR. He argued that the acknowledgment form he signed in July 2018 did not constitute valid written notice, as it referenced an order issued by RusAF, which he had not seen. He also sought compensation for alleged violations of his rights, including intimidation and confidentiality breaches.
RUSADA countered that Isaychev was aware of the prohibited associations when he signed the acknowledgment form, arguing that the key issue was whether Isaychev knew about the coach’s disqualification and still associated with him. They maintained that the ADR violation was established and requested a period of ineligibility for Isaychev, along with costs. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed Isaychev’s request for compensation, citing that any procedural defects were cured by the CAS proceedings and that the circumstances did not warrant an equitable decision. The final ruling partially upheld Isaychev’s appeal, setting aside the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee’s decision and reinstating his results from November 2018, while dismissing his compensation request. The case highlights the procedural complexities in