“We will resolve the issue on a legal plane”: RUSADA Supervisory Board recommends challenging WADA verdict in court

The RUSADA Supervisory Board did not agree with the verdict of the World Anti-Doping Agency regarding Russia. This decision was made by five of the seven participants in the organization’s meeting. According to RUSADA Deputy Director General Margarita Pakhnotskaya, the head of the Council of Europe Sports Convention Department Sergey Khrychikov and two-time Olympic pole vault champion Elena Isinbaeva abstained from voting.

“As part of the discussion, we decided to disagree with the WADA verdict. This recommendation will be presented to the general meeting of RUSADA members, after which a letter of disagreement on behalf of the Director General Yuri Ganus will be submitted to WADA. This should happen within 10-15 days, ”said Alexander Ivlev, Chairman of the Supervisory Board.

The leaders of the Russian anti-doping agency declined to comment on the decision of the supervisory board, but Ivlev suggested that Yuri Ganus and Margarita Pakhnotskaya would follow this recommendation. He did not disclose the details of the discussion preceding the vote, but emphasized that the Russian side did not agree with several points of the WADA conclusions at once. In particular, we are talking about the work of technical experts, on the basis of the conclusions of which a verdict was issued, as well as the application of collective punishment in relation to pure athletes.

“Unfortunately, our positions in the dialogue with WADA did not coincide, we will resolve the issue on a legal plane. We will not make predictions, but we believe that our arguments are strong enough. As for possible opposition on their part, we are in constant dialogue with leading international organizations. Yes, there are contradictions, but Russia is an integral part of world culture, and I hope that it remains in the sports system, ”Ivlev emphasized.

In general, the head of the Supervisory Board positively assessed the recent actions of RUSADA, which was also noted in the report of the WADA Compliance Committee.

“The agency has significantly changed its work, the composition of the supervisory board has changed, now we are acting more openly. The numbers speak for themselves. As for the protection of pure athletes, RUSADA fully fulfills its function, interacts with federations, with international organizations, and conducts educational programs, ”Ivlev added.

Recall that on December 9, the WADA executive committee decided to deprive RUSADA of compliance status in connection with violations identified during the transfer of data to the Moscow anti-doping laboratory. Russia was suspended from participation in major competitions, including the Olympic Games and World Championships, and was also deprived of the right to host international tournaments on its territory. 21 days were allotted to appeal the verdict.

As a third party, the Russian Olympic and Paralympic Committees, as well as individuals who are under sanctions, can join the process. According to the head of the PKR, Vladimir Lukin, the organization will decide to participate in the case immediately after it receives a letter from the supervisory board.

“But I believe that we have no reason not to trust the supervisory board, we will carefully listen to its recommendations,” TASS quotes Lukina.

However, violations identified by the WADA Investigation Department may be another obstacle to a positive CAS case. Its leader, Gunter Junger, said that the agency could initiate a re-examination of the cases of Russian athletes, acquitted in whole or in part in February 2018. According to him, during the audit it was found that Yevgeny Kudryavtsev, one of the key witnesses to the defense, was allegedly involved in falsifying documents confirming Grigory Rodchenkov’s involvement in fraud in the Moscow laboratory.

At the same time, sports lawyer Artyom Patsev said that such statements have no basis, since the rules of the arbitral tribunal do not provide for the review of cases due to newly discovered circumstances.

“Junger should reread CAS rules and decisions. He considers that the testimony of the main witness is given so little attention that it’s even ridiculous to talk about them as a newly discovered circumstance for the main cases, ”RIA Novosti quoted Pacev as saying.