The case revolves around Pavel Sozykin, a Russian sailor, and the Russian Yachting Federation (RYF) challenging decisions by World Sailing (WS) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) that barred Sozykin from participating in the 2016 Rio Olympics. The exclusion was based on allegations from the McLaren report, which cited a suppressed positive doping test from October 2014 involving the substance JWH-018, a cannabinoid. The applicants sought a review by the Court of Arbitration for Sport Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD), arguing that the decisions implied an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) under the IOC Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). However, the IOC later reinstated Sozykin, rendering the merits of the application moot, though the parties were allowed to address jurisdictional issues.
The CAS ADD panel, composed of Michael Beloff QC, Tricia Kavanagh, and Justice Hugh Fraser, examined whether it had jurisdiction over the case. It concluded that jurisdiction under the CAS ADD required an alleged ADRV to be asserted and referred under the IOC ADR, which applies only to doping controls during the Rio 2016 Olympics. Since the sample in question was collected in October 2014, it fell outside this scope. The panel also dismissed the argument that Swiss law principles on transferring cases between jurisdictions applied to the CAS divisions, noting the unique structure of the CAS during the Olympics. While the CAS ADD and the CAS Ad Hoc Division (AHD) have distinct roles—with the AHD serving as the appellate body for the ADD—there was no provision for automatic transfer of cases between them. The panel emphasized that applicants could file with both divisions to ensure jurisdiction but found no basis for the CAS ADD to hear the case.
The applicants contended that the IOC's decision implied an ADRV allegation connected to the Olympics, justifying CAS ADD jurisdiction. However, the panel found no such assertion in the decisions, which were general eligibility conditions for Russian athletes, not specific ADRV referrals. The IOC maintained that jurisdiction was straightforward, as no ADRV had been formally asserted under the relevant rules. Ultimately, the panel ruled that the CAS ADD lacked jurisdiction, leaving the applicants to pursue their case through the appropriate CAS division if desired. The decision highlights the importance of clear jurisdictional boundaries and procedural rules in anti-doping disputes during the Olympics.
The panel also rejected requests for adjournment, stating the applicants had sufficient time to present their case and should have chosen the correct forum initially. The final decision affirmed the panel's lack of jurisdiction and declined to transfer the case to the CAS AHD, underscoring the necessity of adhering to procedural rules and jurisdictional limits in such disputes. The case serves as a reminder of the complexities in anti-doping adjudication and the critical role of jurisdictional clarity in ensuring fair and efficient resolution of disputes.