The case involves Ivan Balandin, a Russian rower, who contested his exclusion from the 2016 Rio Olympics by the International Rowing Federation (FISA) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) due to alleged involvement in a state-sponsored doping scheme. The IOC's decision required Russian athletes to prove they were not implicated in the scheme, reversing the usual presumption of innocence. Balandin's challenge centered on whether this decision violated principles of natural justice and the IOC's autonomy. The dispute stemmed from a 2013 anti-doping test sample of Balandin, which initially showed traces of a prohibited substance (GW 1516) but was later reported as negative. The McLaren Report, published in July 2016, exposed widespread doping in Russia, prompting the IOC to impose strict eligibility criteria. FISA, following the IOC's directive, identified Balandin as implicated due to his sample being flagged as a "SAVE" case, indicating potential manipulation. Despite no official positive test, FISA excluded him. Balandin argued the decision was unfair and lacked evidence, but the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld the IOC and FISA's decision, ruling it respected athletes' rights and the IOC's autonomy. The CAS panel concluded the decision was valid as it allowed athletes to rebut the presumption of guilt individually. The case highlights the tension between anti-doping enforcement and athletes' rights, particularly in systemic doping cases. Balandin's legal challenge argued the IOC and FISA unlawfully assumed an anti-doping violation without proper procedure. The CAS panel, under Swiss law, confirmed its jurisdiction and held a hearing with representatives from FISA, the IOC, and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The panel determined the dispute centered on eligibility, not anti-doping, given the IOC's need to address systemic doping. The IOC's decision aimed to balance collective responsibility with individual justice, requiring Russian athletes to prove they did not benefit from the scheme. The panel acknowledged the challenging timing of the McLaren Report but upheld the IOC's authority to impose eligibility criteria under exceptional circumstances. It concluded Balandin was implicated in the scheme, as his sample tested positive and was altered under the state-sponsored system. The panel applied the "comfortable satisfaction" standard to affirm Balandin's involvement and dismissed his application, upholding FISA's decision. The ruling underscores the complexity of balancing collective sanctions with individual rights in systemic doping cases while maintaining the integrity of competitive sports. The IOC's approach sought to protect the Olympics' credibility while ensuring fairness for uninvolved athletes. The panel's decision affirmed the legitimacy of the IOC's criteria and its application in Balandin's case, ultimately dismissing his appeal and associated claims.