International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Endri Karina

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Below is a summary of the relevant facts and allegations based on the parties’ written submissions, pleadings and evidence adduced in this procedure. Additional facts and allegations found in the parties’ written submissions, pleadings and evidence may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion that follows. While the Sole Arbitrator has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the parties in the present proceedings, he only refers to the submissions and evidence he considers necessary to explain his reasoning.

4. On 23 July 2012, the Athlete provided an out-of-competition urine sample (sample no. 2720817) as part of the Doping Control Program at the 2012 London Olympics (the “Sample”).

5. On 4 August 2012, the Athlete competed in the Men’s 94kg Weightlifting Event, finishing 7th overall.

6. The Sample was analysed at the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) accredited laboratory in London, United Kingdom (the “London Laboratory”) using the available detection methods applied at the time by the London Laboratory. This did not result in an Adverse Analytical Finding (“AAF”) at that time.

7. At the IOC’s request, the remains of the Sample (remaining part of the respective A-Sample and full intact B-Sample) was subsequently transferred to the WADA-accredited laboratory in Lausanne, Switzerland for long-term storage.

8. Under Article 5.1 of the IOC’s anti-doping rules applicable to the 2012 London Olympics (the “IOC ADR”), the IOC was entitled to re-analyse samples collected during the 2012 London Olympics.

9. As part of this process, a further analysis of the Sample was conducted by the Lausanne Laboratory and as it reported to the International Testing Agency (the “ITA”) on 7 August 2019, this revealed the presence of Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone metabolites (also known as “oral turinabol”), which belongs to Class S1.1a (Exogenous Anabolic Androgenic Steroids) of the 2019 WADA Prohibited List. Such a finding constituted an AAF.

10. The ITA, by delegation from the IOC, reviewed the AAF and confirmed inter alia that the Athlete did not possess a Therapeutic Use Exemption for the relevant substance and that no apparent departures from the International Standard for Testing and Investigations or the International Standard for Laboratories could undermine the AAF.

11. On 21 August 2019, the ITA notified the Athlete of the AAF and in accordance with Article 6.2.6 of the IOC ADR, charged the Athlete with an anti-doping rule violation (“ADRV”). The Athlete, by means of an “Athlete Rights Form” was then requested whether he accepted the AAF, or alternatively, whether he wanted to proceed with the opening of the B Sample and analysis, and receive the accompanying document package.

12. On 30 October 2019, the Athlete signed and returned the Athlete’s Rights Form noting that he did not accept the AAF. But he did not request the analysis of the B Sample or the accompanying documentation package. The Athlete further noted that he would not attend the opening and analysis of the B Sample (either personally or through a representative).

13. In an additional notation to the Athlete’s Rights Form, the Athlete stated as follows:

I will not do anything else for this matter and I will wait for the completion of all procedures.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

14. On 10 December 2019, the Claimant filed a Request for Arbitration with the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the “ADD”) in accordance with Article A13 of the Arbitration Rules of the ADD (the “ADD Rules”).

15. In its Request for Arbitration, and in accordance with Article A16 of the ADD Rules, the Claimant requested that this procedure be referred to a Sole Arbitrator appointed by the President of the ADD.

16. On 13 December 2019, the ADD opened this procedure and invited the Athlete to file an answer to the request for arbitration in accordance with Article A14 of the ADD Rules.

17. On 20 December 2019, the ADD, on behalf of the President of the ADD, confirmed the appointment of Mr. Pekka Ilmivalta, Attorney-at-Law, Helsinki, Finland, as Sole Arbitrator in accordance with Article A16 of the ADD Rules.

18. On 7 January 2020, the Athlete filed his answer to charges brought against him in the request for arbitration.

19. On 9 January 2020, the ADD confirmed receipt of the Athlete’s answer and, on behalf of the Sole Arbitrator, invited the parties to state whether they requested a hearing. A party’s silence would be considered confirmation that no hearing was needed.

20. On 16 January 2020, the ADD confirmed that no party requested a hearing, and on behalf of the Sole Arbitrator who had considered the entire file, informed the parties that he was sufficiently well informed to render a decision without a hearing.

21. On 20 & 21 January 2020, the Claimant and Athlete, respectively, signed and returned the order of procedure.

IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

22. The IOC’s submissions, in essence, may be summarised as follows:

• Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone belongs to Class S1.1a (Exogenous Anabolic Androgenic Steroids) of the 2012 and 2019 WADA Prohibited List.

• The substance was found in the Athlete’s A Sample and the Athlete did not request the analysis of his B Sample (and the B Sample was not analyzed). This constitutes an ADRV in accordance with Article 2.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code (“WADC”).

• A further violation under Article 2.2 of the WADC could be established considering that the substance found in the Samples is specifically used for doping purposes and this evidenced intentional use by the Athlete.

• The Athlete has not provided any explanation as to the presence of the Prohibited Substance in his sample and there is no indication that the Athlete bore No Fault or Negligence.

• Steroids are used for build-up and preparation and have long-term and lasting effects. Therefore, the presence of the Prohibited Substance in his body on 23 July 2012 would have positively impacted his performance during his match on 4 August 2012 for purposes of Art. 8.1.1 of the IOC ADR. Consequently, all results obtained by the Athlete during the 2012 London Olympics should disqualified with all resulting consequences.

23. In its Request for Arbitration, the IOC requested the following relief:

The International Olympic Committee hereby respectfully asks the Court of Arbitration for Sport to rule that:

1) The International Olympic Committee’s request is admissible.

2) Endri Karina is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation in accordance with the IOC Anti- Doping Rules.

3) Endri Karina’s results from the 2012 London Olympics are disqualified, along with all other consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, diplomas, points, and prizes.

24. The Athlete’s submission, in essence, may be summarized as follows:

• The Athlete denies using the Prohibited Substance and does not know how it entered his bodily system.

• The Athlete has been subjected to many anti-doping controls by the IWF and the IOC and has never tested positive.

• Leniency is requested so as to protect the Athlete’s career.