The case centers on Russian rowers Anastasia Karabelshikova and Ivan Podshivalov challenging their disqualification from the 2016 Rio Olympics under an International Olympic Committee (IOC) decision. The IOC's Executive Board had issued a ruling on July 24, 2016, in response to the McLaren Report, which revealed a state-organized doping scheme in Russia. The IOC aimed to balance collective responsibility with individual rights, but Point 3 of its decision barred the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) from entering any athlete previously sanctioned for doping, regardless of whether the sanction had been served. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division found this provision unenforceable, ruling it violated principles of natural justice by imposing an absolute criterion without allowing athletes to rebut the presumption of guilt. The CAS panel, comprising Mark Hovell, Francisco Müssnich, and Rabab Yasseen, determined that Point 3 constituted an additional sanction beyond existing anti-doping penalties and conflicted with the IOC's stated goal of individual assessment. The case also involved the World Rowing Federation (FISA), which had imposed eligibility criteria requiring Russian rowers to undergo at least three anti-doping tests analyzed by non-Russian WADA-accredited laboratories. The applicants, who had prior doping sanctions, argued their exclusion was unjust. The CAS upheld their challenge, emphasizing fairness and the right to individual evaluation.
The CAS panel confirmed its jurisdiction under the Olympic Charter and considered arguments from both sides. The applicants claimed the IOC's decision violated the principle of ne bis in idem (double jeopardy) and was applied retroactively, breaching procedural fairness. FISA argued it had no direct role in the exclusion, as the IOC's directive targeted the ROC. The IOC defended its autonomy, stating the "Osaka rule" (a prior CAS ruling on doping bans) did not apply. The panel acknowledged the IOC's challenging position due to the McLaren Report but questioned the fairness of Point 3, which lacked recourse for affected athletes. Unlike the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), which allowed exceptions for athletes with clean records, the IOC's blanket ban was deemed inconsistent with natural justice.
The panel examined whether Point 3 functioned as an eligibility rule or an additional sanction, concluding it was punitive. Referencing prior CAS jurisprudence, such as the BOA Bye-Law dispute, the panel found similar restrictions to be sanctions rather than eligibility criteria. While recognizing the exceptional circumstances behind the IOC's decision, the panel upheld the principle that Point 3 imposed an extra penalty on athletes who had already served their sanctions, rendering it unenforceable. Regarding FISA, the panel noted it had not applied Point 2 of the IOC Decision, which assessed athletes' testing records over the prior 18 months. Instead, FISA relied on Point 3, assuming the ROC would not enter the athletes. The panel clarified FISA's responsibility was to determine eligibility under Point 2, not to grant participation outright, as final entry required approval from both the ROC and the IOC.
In its final decision, the panel partially upheld the athletes' application, declaring Point 3 unenforceable due to its violation of natural justice. All other relief requests were rejected. The ruling reinforced the importance of fair process in anti-doping regulations while allowing for individual assessments under Point 2 of the IOC Decision. The case highlighted the tension between collective responsibility and individual rights in anti-doping enforcement, with CAS serving as the final arbiter in such disputes.