The trouble with Ostarine: Jimmy Wallhead’s
16th March 2018
• IBSF Doping Hearing Panel comes to the conclusion not to re-impose the provisional suspension of Aleksandr Tretiakov and Alexandr Zubkov – the IBSF Executive Committee decides to challenge the decision in front of CAS
After having received the reasoned decision by the IOC Oswald Commission for Mr. Alexandr Zubkov and Mr. Aleksandr Tretiakov, the IBSF Doping hearing Panel presided by Advocaat Dolf Segaar with its Members Prof. Dr. Ian Blackshaw and Prof. Dr. Peter Hemmersbach met at Municon Conference Center to hear via Skype Call Mr. Aleksandr Tretiakov and Mr. Alekandr Zubkov, who were accompanied by their legal representative, Mr. Philippe Bärtsch of Schellenberg Wittmer Ltd. The purpose of the hearing was to decide on the question whether the Oswald Decision would give reason to re-impose the provisonal suspension that was lifted by the Doping Hearing Panel by its December 1, 2017 decision.
The IBSF Doping Hearing Panel – in summary – came to the following conclusion:
“52. The IBSF Doping Hearing Panel comes to the conclusion that not hearing Dr Rodchenkov before a proper Disciplinary Commission or Hearing Panel instead of exclusively before McLaren is in breach of the WADA Code and the IBSF ADR and especially of article 10.6 of the WADA Code and article 10.6. of the IBSF ADR.
53. The IBSF Doping Hearing Panel comes to the conclusion that not hearing Dr Rodchenkov before a proper Disciplinary Commission or Hearing Panel instead of exclusively before McLaren is convincingly probable to be successfully contested before a Court as being not compatible with the principles of international law, Swiss procedural law and in particular with article 6 § 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights regarding the right to a fair process.
54. Following from the above conclusions it leads the IBSF Doping Hearing Panel to the finding that a provisional suspension of the Athlete under the current, exceptional circumstances would be clearly unfair within the meaning of article 22.214.171.124 sub (c) of the IBSF ADR.
The IBSF Doping Hearing Panel emphasises that article 126.96.36.199 sub (c) just refers to the fact that a Provisional Suspension prior to a final hearing in accordance with Article 8 would be clearly unfair. The Doping Hearing Panel envisages that at such IBSF final hearing or at another hearing before a Disciplinary Doping Panel such as for instance CAS, the procedural deficiency mentioned above may be removed by examining and cross-examine Dr. Rodchenkov (as said before, to which he has declared to be prepared).
55. The decision of the IBSF Doping Hearing Panel following the considerations in this document is not to re-impose the provisional suspension of the Athlete.
56. The IBSF Doping Hearing Panel would like to add the following consideration to its decision in this matter. The IBSF Doping Hearing Panel did not make any decision in this document about the validity of the McLaren report and the documents that have been made available to the IBSF. Nor has the IBSF Doping Hearing Panel expressed any opinion on the Oswald Decision, other than that the IBSF Doping Hearing Panel came to the conclusion that there was a legal necessity to have Dr Rodchenkov as witness available for examination and/or cross examination in order to create equality of treatment and therewith due process.”
The Tretiakov decision is available in PDF format below, and its annexes are available for download here. The Zubkov decision is available in PDF format below, and its annexes are available for download here.
The IBSF Executive Committee discussed at its last meeting on Thursday 14 December, 2017 respectively Saturday 16 December, 2017 that it will challenge the decisions of the IBSF Doping Hearing Panel in front of CAS in case it will not re-impose the provisional suspension of the athletes as it strongly believes a provisional suspension must be imposed.
• This media release was originally published by the International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF) on 19 December 2017. To access the original, please click here.
Various Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panels have issued the following decisions: 1) Awards...
• Heiki Nabi’s appeal against a provisional suspension imposed by the Estonian Anti-Doping and Sports...
The Bureau of the FIFA Council took the following decisions concerning the governance of two...