- When is the verdict planned for the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne ( CAS)?

- CAS should provide us with the final document in mid-July. There will be no further hearings.

- What are your expectations?

- We expect a positive decision for the three biathletes, since we believe that all the arguments of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) were refuted by us, as well as convincing evidence of their innocence was presented.

- Did you have the opportunity to present new evidence after the March hearings?

- No, all evidence was provided in advance. At the meetings themselves, these documents were examined and discussed. So now we are just waiting for a CAS solution.

- So, the delay could not affect the final verdict?

- In fact, this is a common practice when it takes a lot of time to prepare a decision. Of course, one should not have expected a quick decision on such a complex matter. Therefore, I can’t say that the transfer has pros or cons for us. On the one hand, we have nowhere to hurry, but on the other, I would like to know the result. After all, the athletes themselves have been in this suspended state for too long.

- Did you communicate during this time with Zaitseva, Vilukhina or Romanova? What do they think about the upcoming verdict?

- No, they only asked when the decision would be made. The CAS was expected to pronounce the verdict in April, and then we received a notification that this would happen in mid-July. We hope that there will be no more delays.

- Will the publication of Der Spiegel affect the decision of the court ?

- Hardly. If the verdict really appears in the coming days, then I think it is ready and nothing will change the decision of the judges. And this article is the result of an independent investigation. I can only welcome the fact that this topic has interested German journalists. For my part, I must say that I did not communicate with them and have nothing to do with publication.

- It turns out that your conclusions about the fake signatures of Grigory Rodchenkov received another confirmation?

- I can assume that the journalists collected the relevant materials, communicated with both parties, and based on the results of the investigation, formed a position that is reflected in the article. Yes, this is precisely the conclusion that we voiced at the hearing in early March.

- Did any reaction from the IOC follow?

“I don’t know anything about this.” But I know that the IOC prefers not to comment on such publications, so I won’t be surprised if there will be no reaction at all.

- At the March meetings of the IOC, within 24 hours, he submitted a new letter to Rodchenkov, in which he allegedly confirmed the authenticity of his testimony. What can they do now to refute these conclusions?

- Nothing, since the stage of evidence submission has long been completed. But here I would say that our conclusions on fake signatures are not a key factor on the basis of which we would expect to win this case. Indeed, many of the conclusions of the Richard McLaren Commission are based on the words of Rochenkov. This is called hearsay - someone told someone something. Therefore, this cannot be considered evidence. Our main arguments relate to the merits of the allegations, where there is at least something other than words. Their basic defense line was also built on their refutation.

- What are the allegations?

- For example, Zaitseva was accused of violating anti-doping rules on the basis of indirect results of the analysis of her samples. It should be noted that none of the girls have ever found doping in samples. In one of Olga’s samples taken at the end of 2014, two DNA were present. It was assumed that it was a substitution. This was confirmed by Rodchenkov. However, it was strange for us to hear this, given the fact that Olga at that time was planning to end her career. But the motivation was left by the IOC outside the brackets.

Later it turned out that the experts of the Olympic Committee made a serious mistake and the second DNA is male, not female. Moreover, the analysis carried out on our initiative determined that it belongs to Zaitseva’s husband. This was also proved by an additional study by the IOC for the presence of foreign substances in the sample, namely sperm, after which the charges were dropped. That is, this argument did not even live up to the CAS trial. Against this background, Rodchenkov’s statement about the substitution with reference to two DNAs looked especially interesting. It turns out that he just lied to Olga and his words and the eggs weren’t worth it.

“What about the salt level?”

- It already concerns the Olympic test. But I want to make a reservation, this is not about an abnormal level, but about a physiologically acceptable one, as our experts from Russia and the USA have proved. This indicator can occur in healthy people. It depends on many factors: nutrition, fluid intake, physical activity, and so on.

- How serious are the allegations made after detecting scratches on test tubes?

- Initially, the IOC claimed that one sample was opened. Honestly, for us this argument sounded strange. After all, if an athlete takes doping, his traces would be found in all analyzes and there is no point in changing only one sample. Their arguments were based on the fact that some tubes have more scratches than others, although they cannot explain their origin. It means that some fraud was carried out with the first. But there were many assumptions in which their experts were not sure.

Our English forensic scientist proved that the damage did not necessarily occur as a result of an autopsy. They can form naturally when the tubes are closed. The metal ring used to maintain the seal may scratch.

- Can   CAS justify not all biathletes, but, for example, only Zaitsev?

- Yes, because the charges are different. And Zaitseva has more of them than Romanova and Vilukhina.

- What are your actions if appeals are rejected? Do you intend to appeal to the Swiss Federal Court?

- Yes, such an opportunity is not excluded, it is used quite often. There is also the option to contact the Swiss law enforcement authorities on the fact of using documents with fake Rodchenkov signatures. We can do this regardless of the result. But for lawyers, the desire of clients is the law. Therefore, I am not sure that in the event of a favorable conclusion to this saga, the athletes themselves will want to further prove the fact of falsification. For us, this question is obvious and closed. Probably, our conclusions can be used in other cases, but this should be decided by athletes and lawyers who represent them.

- In your opinion, how can the conclusions of Der Spigel experts affect the affairs of other Russian athletes?

“Not sure if this could affect anything.” Yes, such articles can shape public opinion, but still I want to believe that independent arbitrators are considering cases, who draw conclusions based on the evidence presented.

- The proof of the falsification of signatures led many to talk about the need to attend Rodchenkov himself at the hearing. Can the defense side demand this?

- It all depends on the circumstances of the particular case. Yes, this can be done when the prosecution is based on his testimony. But there is another problem. If someone presents himself as the ex-head of the Moscow anti-doping laboratory, how can this person be identified? This question arose with us. The IOC submitted allegedly notarized testimonies, although we did not see the notary’s seal. Suppose this is true, but how did the notary make sure that Rodchenkov himself came to him? If his appearance is changed, then old documents in this case will not allow him to be identified. And if there are new ones, then who gave them to him?

There are no less such questions even when a video communication session with a WADA informant is organized for you, and you either don’t see it at all, or understand that a person is not very similar to him. Maybe this is some kind of actor? The fact that he answers questions about Russian sport does not prove that you have Rodchenkov.

- Do you get the impression that even in the West they no longer trust Rodchenkov’s words?

- I would like to believe in it, because he said a lot of things that are not true. All this becomes apparent with an independent study of documents. But for me it is clear that Rodchenkov will continue to say what they want to hear from him. He found himself in a situation where his life and well-being depend on his own words. Therefore, now he cannot refute what was said earlier. Films, books, interviews, testimonies in various cases - all this for him is a source of income and a guarantee of security. We should hardly expect truthful testimony from him. Obviously, if the witness has an interest, then this is the basis for at least a critical analysis of everything that he says. And Rodchenkov certainly has it.