## Facts

- Aleksandr Zubkov was a Russian bobsleigh athlete who competed at the 2014 Olympic Winter Games in Sochi and won gold in the two-man and four-man bobsleigh events.
- Following investigations into doping and sample manipulation connected to Sochi 2014 (including materials referenced in the McLaren Report), the International Olympic Committee (IOC) pursued individual disciplinary cases against a group of Russian athletes, including Zubkov.
- The IOC alleged that Russian officials operated a urine-sample swapping scheme during the Games and that certain athletes participated in or benefitted from it.
- As to Zubkov, the IOC alleged (among other things) that he provided “clean” urine before the Games for potential later substitution and that he transmitted images of his doping-control documentation to third parties so insiders could identify which samples to target.
- The IOC Disciplinary Commission concluded that Zubkov had committed multiple anti-doping rule violations connected to the Sochi scheme, including use of a prohibited substance, use of a prohibited method (urine substitution), tampering (or attempted tampering) with doping control, and cover-up/complicity.
- The IOC sanctioned Zubkov by disqualifying his Sochi 2014 results (with resulting forfeiture of medals) and imposing a lifetime ban/ineligibility from future Olympic Games.
- Zubkov appealed the IOC decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) under the IOC rules and the CAS Code.
- CAS heard the matter de novo and issued its arbitral award in CAS 2017/A/5422 on 1 February 2018.

## Issues

1. Did CAS have jurisdiction over Zubkov’s appeal, and was the appeal admissible under the applicable IOC and CAS procedural rules?
2. What burden and standard of proof governed the IOC’s case (including where the allegations were based on non-analytical evidence rather than a positive test)?
3. Did the IOC establish, to the required standard, that Zubkov committed or was complicit in Sochi 2014 anti-doping rule violations connected to urine-sample substitution and related misconduct?
4. If violations were established, were the sanctions—(a) disqualification/annulment of Sochi 2014 results and (b) lifetime Olympic ineligibility—authorized by the applicable rules and justified on the facts?

## Decision

- CAS found it had jurisdiction and that the appeal was admissible.
- CAS upheld the IOC’s determination that anti-doping rule violations connected to the Sochi 2014 urine substitution scheme were established against Zubkov to the applicable standard of proof, and CAS confirmed the disqualification of his Sochi 2014 results (with the resulting forfeiture of medals).
- CAS set aside the IOC’s lifetime Olympic ineligibility sanction, finding that such a permanent exclusion was not supported as imposed under the applicable regulatory framework and/or was not justified in the form applied.
- CAS therefore maintained the consequences for Sochi 2014 while removing the lifetime bar from future Olympic participation.

## Legal Principles

- The party asserting an anti-doping rule violation bears the burden of proof and must satisfy the applicable standard (commonly “comfortable satisfaction” in CAS anti-doping cases).
- Anti-doping rule violations may be proven through non-analytical evidence (including circumstantial, documentary, and forensic material) if the totality of evidence is sufficiently convincing.
- General evidence of a broader doping scheme may supply context, but panels must still assess whether the evidence links the charged athlete to the alleged conduct to the required standard.
- CAS appeals from IOC disciplinary decisions are generally heard de novo, permitting the panel to reassess facts, evaluate evidence, and review both liability and sanction.
- Disqualification of Olympic results may be imposed where a violation affecting the relevant event period is established, even absent a positive test, provided the proof standard is met.
- Severe participation restrictions (such as permanent Olympic ineligibility) require a clear legal basis in the applicable rules and must be justified by the facts and the nature of the violation; where not supported, CAS may set such measures aside while leaving other consequences intact.

## Conclusion

In *Zubkov v. International Olympic Committee*, CAS 2017/A/5422 (2018), CAS confirmed that the IOC had proven anti-doping rule violations tied to the Sochi 2014 urine substitution scheme and upheld the disqualification of Zubkov’s Sochi 2014 results and medals, but it annulled the IOC’s lifetime Olympic ineligibility measure for lack of adequate support in the governing framework and/or justification in the form imposed.


Zubkov v. International Olympic Committee, CAS 2017/A/5422 (2018)