DECISION. of the. ISU Disciplinary Commission. In the matter of

Similar documents
Decision. of the. ISU Disciplinary Commission. In the matter of

Disciplinary Commission. Case No April 28, Decision of the ISU Disciplinary Commission. against. and

UWW ANTI-DOPING PANEL DECISION. Case

UWW ANTI-DOPING PANEL DECISION. Case

Disciplinary Commission. Case No Decision of the ISU Disciplinary Commission. In the matter of. against

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING VITA PALAMAR BORN ON 12 OCTOBER 1977, UKRAINE, ATHLETE, ATHLETICS

Arbitration CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/004 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Silvia Danekova, award of 12 August 2016

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING IRYNA KULESHA BORN ON 26 JUNE 1986, BELARUS, ATHLETE, WEIGHTLIFTING

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION

ISU Disciplinary Commission. Case No Decision of the ISU Disciplinary Commission. In the matter of. against.

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION

Disciplinary Commission. Case No Final Decision in the matter of. against. and

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING ALMAS UTESHOV BORN ON 18 MAY 1988, KAZAKHSTAN, ATHLETE, WEIGHTLIFTING

ISU Disciplinary Commission. Case No Decision of the ISU Disciplinary Commission. In the matter of. against.

DECISION OF THE WORLD CURLING FEDERATION CASE PANEL. Dated 14 June, In respect of the following

Decision. of the. ISU Disciplinary Commission. In the matter of

ANTI-DOPING ESSENTIALS

In re: ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ANTI-DOPING RULE IN TERMS OF ARTICLE 2.1 OF THE 2016 ANTI-DOPING TRIBUNAL FINDINGS AND SANCTION

FIVB Disciplinary Panel Decision. In the matter of Mr. Saber Hoshmand (Iran)

Disciplinary Commission. Case No Decision of the ISU Disciplinary Commission. In the matter of. against. and

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING IRYNA KULESHA BORN ON 26 JUNE 1986, BELARUS, ATHLETE, WEIGHTLIFTING

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION

Decision. the FIBA Disciplinary Panel established in accordance with Article 8.1 of the FIBA Internal Regulations governing Anti-Doping in the matter

Arbitration CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/010 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Gabriel Sincraian, award of 8 December 2016

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION

Arbitration CAS anti-doping Division (OG Rio) AD 16/006 International Olympic Committee (IOC) v. Kleber Da Silva Ramos, award of 20 August 2016

Panel: Mr Romano Subiotto QC (United Kingdom), President; Mr François-Charles Bernard (France); Mr Beat Hodler (Switzerland)

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT (CAS) Anti-doping Division XXIII Olympic Winter Games in Pyeongchang

SA INSTITUTE FOR DRUG FREE SPORT (SAIDS) ANTI DOPING DISCIPLINARY HEARING

Disciplinary Commission. Decision of the ISU Disciplinary Commission. In the matter of

IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTE FOR DRUG-FREE SPORT ANTI-DOPING DISCIPLINARY COMMITTE HELD AT HOLIDAY INN ROSEBANK RULING

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATHLETICS FEDERATIONS

Disciplinary Commission. Case No Decision of the ISU Disciplinary Commission. In the matter of. against

BCAC ANTI DOPING POLICY

DECISION of the FEI TRIBUNAL. dated 22 April 2015

Decision. the FIBA Disciplinary Panel established in accordance with Article 8.1 of the FIBA Internal Regulations governing Anti-Doping in the matter

JUDICIAL AWARD DELIVERED BY THE FISA DOPING HEARING PANEL. sitting in the following composition. In the case of Kissya Cataldo Da Costa (BRA)

ANTI-DOPING AWARD DELIVERED BY THE ANTI-DOPING HEARING PANEL OF FISA. Members: Jean-Christophe Rolland Tricia Smith. In the case

Issued Decision UK Anti-Doping and Nigel Levine

FILA ANTI-DOPING REGULATIONS

Decision of the ISU Disciplinary Commission. In the matter of

SOUTH AFRICAN RUGBY UNION - ANTI-DOPING REGULATIONS

United States Olympic Committee National Anti-Doping Policies

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING YARELYS BARRIOS BORN ON 12 JULY 1983, CUBA, ATHLETE, ATHLETICS

Arbitration CAS 2012/A/2986 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Riley Salmon & Fédération Internationale de Volleyball (FIVB), award of 30 May 2013

ABRIDGED DECISION. Made by the FEI Tribunal on 28 March 2014

Case No Final Decision in the matter of

Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018 (as of August 2017) 1

English. wada-ama.org

AWARD DELIVERED BY THE FISA DOPING HEARING PANEL Sitting in the following composition

All you need to know about anti-doping. Representatives from Hong Kong Anti-Doping Committee

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING ADAM SEROCZYNSKI BORN ON 13 MARCH 1974, ATHLETE, POLAND, CANOE

Disciplinary Commission. Final Decision in the matter of. International Skating Union, - Complainant. against. and

Decision. the FIBA Secretary General in accordance with Article of the FIBA Internal Regulations governing Anti-Doping in the matter

INTERNATIONAL PARALYMPIC COMMITTEE (the Applicant) Versus. Mr. Yoldani SILVA PIMENTEL (the Respondent)

ANTI-DOPING AWARD DELIVERED BY THE ANTI-DOPING HEARING PANEL OF FISA. Members: Jean-Christophe Rolland Tricia Smith. In the case

the FIBA Disciplinary Panel established in accordance with Article 8.1 of the FIBA Internal Regulations governing Anti-Doping in the matter

ATHLETE S GUIDE TO THE BEF NATIONAL EQUINE ANTI-DOPING AND CONTROLLED MEDICATION RULES

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING NESTA CARTER BORN ON 11 OCTOBER 1985, JAMAICA, ATHLETE, ATHLETICS

SPORT DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTRE OF CANADA

Arbitration CAS 2009/A/2011 Stephan Schumacher v. International Olympic Committee (IOC), award on costs of 6 May 2010

Ulf LIENHARD. In London, Great Britain on 7 th March 2004

We Are For Clean Basketball

We Are For Clean Basketball

Panel: The Hon. Justice Tricia Kavanagh (Australia), Sole Arbitrator

Anti-Doping. Important Facts and Highlights from WADA s Athlete Guide. At-a-Glance

INTERNATIONAL PARALYMPIC COMMITTEE (the Applicant) Versus. Mr. Piotr TRUSZKOWSKI (the Respondent)

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT (CAS) Ad hoc Division Games of the XXXI Olympiad in Rio de Janeiro AWARD. Ihab Abdelrahman...

THE ATP TOUR ANTI-DOPING TRIBUNAL APPEAL OF DIMITRY VLASOV OPINION

The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Games of the XXXI Olympiad, in Rio de Janeiro, in 2016

Arbitration CAS 2009/A/1755 Adam Seroczynski v. International Olympic Committee (IOC), award of 20 August 2009

IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT UNDER THE ANTI-DOPING RULES OF THE RUGBY FOOTBALL LEAGUE DECISION

DECISION of the FEI TRIBUNAL. dated 18 September 2015

CLEAN SPORT FOR HUMAN ATHLETES

MEDICAL & ANTI-DOPING REGULATIONS

THERAPEUTIC USE EXEMPTION POLICY U.S. ANTI-DOPING AGENCY. Effective JANUARY 1, (Revised June 21, 2018)

Member Federations Council and Commission Members. Circular No 3 of 2017 Anti-Doping Programme Information

DECISION of the FEI TRIBUNAL. dated 18 October 2017

DECISION of the FEI TRIBUNAL. dated 11 October Event 1/ID: CH-EU-A 4 Göteborg (SWE)/ 2017_CH-EU_0002_A_H4_01_01

DECISION of the FEI TRIBUNAL. dated 27 July Person Responsible/NF/ID: Maria Fernanda Villar/URU/

ANTI-DOPING BY-LAW OF THE AUSTRALIAN OLYMPIC COMMITTEE

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION

Arbitration CAS ad hoc Division (O.G. Nagano) 98/002 R. / International Olympic Committee (IOC), award of 12 February 1998

FIVB Disciplinary Panel Decision. In the matter of Mr. Daniel KONCAL (Slovakia)

Decision. the FIBA Disciplinary Panel established in accordance with Article 8.1 of the FIBA Internal Regulations governing Anti-Doping in the matter

Agenda. Rules and Regulations Medication Therapeutic Use Exemption Dietary Supplements Doping Control

Arbitration CAS ad hoc Division (OG Rio) 16/023 Ihab Abdelrahman v. Egyptian NADO, award of 16 August 2016 (operative part of 11 August 2016)

Anti-Doping Important Facts and Highlights from WADA s Athlete Guide. At-a-Glance

The International Olympic Committee Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XX Olympic Winter Games in Turin, 2006

Arbitration CAS ad hoc Division (O.G. Sydney) 00/015 Mihaela Melinte / International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF), award of 29 September 2000

SR/Adhocsport/1025/2017

LAW ON PREVENTION OF DOPING IN SPORTS I. INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS. Article 1

Arbitration CAS 2016/O/4454 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. Vera Sokolova, award of 13 October 2016

DECISION of the FEI TRIBUNAL. dated 13 July Event/ID: CSI2* - Choczewo Baltica Tour Ciekocinko (POL)/ 2014_CI_0388_S_S_01_10

PGA TOUR. Anti-Doping Program Manual

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE IOC DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DECISION

IAAF ADVISORY NOTE USE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION (ANTI-DOPING AND INTEGRITY PROGRAMMES)

SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTE FOR DRUG-FREE SPORT (SAIDS)

Transcription:

I N T E R N A T I O N A L S K A T I N G U N I O N HEADQUARTERS ADDRESS: CHEMIN DE PRIMEROSE 2 - CH 1007 LAUSANNE - SWITZERLAND TELEPHONE (+41) 21 612 66 66 TELEFAX (+41) 21 612 66 77 E-MAIL: info@isu.ch Case No. 08/2012 August 31, 2012 DECISION of the ISU Disciplinary Commission Panel: Volker Waldeck, Chair Fred Benjamin Dr. Allan Böhm In the matter of International Skating Union, Chemin de Primrose 2, 1007 Lausanne, Switzerland, represented by its Legal Advisor, Dr. Béatrice Pfister, against - Complainant - Mr. Pavel Kulizhnikov, Russia, and - Alleged Offender - The Russian Skating Union, Ms. Olga Chupina, General Secretary, Office 230, Luzhnetskaya nab. 8, Moscow 119991, Russia, - Interested Member - Concerning the alleged violation of the ISU Anti-Doping Rules 1

I. History of the procedure On May 11, 2012, the ISU filed a complaint against the Alleged Offender, together with 10 exhibits. On May 16, 2012 the Alleged Offender and the Interested Member were invited by the ISU Disciplinary Commission to file a statement of reply within 21 days upon receipt of the complaint. The Interested Member filed a statement of reply on June 5, 2012. II. Procedural Matters According to Article 24, Paragraph 10 of the ISU Constitution 2010 and Article 8.1.1 of the ISU Anti- Doping Rules 2010 the Disciplinary Commission has jurisdiction in anti-doping cases arising out of ISU Testing or Testing at International Events or Competitions. The present case arises out of testing at the ISU World Junior Speed Skating Championships in Obihiro City, Japan, 2012, i.e. of testing at an ISU International Competition. Therefore the ISU Disciplinary Commission has jurisdiction to hear and decide this case. Ill. Facts 1. The Alleged Offender is an 18 year old Member of the Russian Skating Union who participated at the 2012 ISU World Junior Speed Skating Championships in Obihiro, Japan. 2. Following an in-competition Anti-Doping test carried out on March 4, 2012, the ISU received an adverse analytical finding for sample 3379905 from the Alleged Offender. Said sample was found to contain Methylhexaneamine, which belongs to class S6b (Stimulants/Specified Stimulants) of the 2012 WADA List of Prohibited Substances and Methods. On his doping control form the Alleged Offender had listed the following medications taken in the last 7 days: Polivitamin, Adaptogen. - Doping Control Form for Sample 3379905, taken on March 4, 2012, Exhibit 1 - Laboratory result for A Sample 3379905 Exhibit 2 - Class S6b (Stimulants/Specified Stimulants) of 2012 WADA List of Prohibited Substances and Methods Exhibit 3 3. By letter of April 4, 2012, the Interested ISU Member and the Alleged Offender were informed of the positive finding and requested to submit their written explanations within 15 days of notification. Further they were reminded of the Alleged Offender s right to request that the B sample be analyzed. - Letter from ISU to the Russian Skating Union dated April 4, 2012 Exhibit 4 4. On April 18, 2012, the Interested ISU Member forwarded to the ISU a letter of explanation of the Alleged Offender dated April 12, 2012, including an English translation thereof, in which he explained to have taken "Umkalor" against a cold with fever and running nose upon advice of his cousin, after having checked the composition of Umkalor in view of the WADA prohibited list and having not found any Prohibited Substance. The Alleged Offender stopped using Umkalor a few 2

days before arriving in Japan on February 21, 2012 and further he stated that among the nutritional supplements and drugs he had used from February 21 to March 4, according to the team physician, there were no substances from the Prohibited List. The Alleged Offender expressed his conviction that the adverse analytical finding could have been caused only by Umkalor in whose ingredients list he had found "pelargonium sidoides", the Latin name for geranium, which he claims is listed in the Prohibited List as Methylhexaneamine ( metilgeksanamin dimetilpentilamin). Finally, the Alleged Offender waived his right to have the B-sample analyzed. In its letter addressed to the Complainant on April 17, 2012, the Interested ISU Federation pointed out that this was the Alleged Offender's first Anti-Doping Rule violation, that his youth may justify the lack of experience and that any intent to enhance his sport performance or mask the use of a performance enhancing substance was absent. - Letter Alleged Offender/Interested ISU Member, dated April 12, 2012, including translation Exhibit 5 - Letter Interested ISU Membcr / ISU, dated April 17.2012 Exhibit 6 5. Further inquiries of the Complainant brought about the following results: Dr. Christiane Ayotte of the INRS Institute Armand-Frappier in Montreal wrote that "pelargonium sidoides" as contained in Umkalor is not known to contain Methylhexaneamine. She further pointed out that given the halftime life of Methylhexaneamine not µg/ml, but only ng/ml would still be present in human urine 10 days after its intake. The Tokyo laboratory in charge of analyzing the sample in question gave a rough estimate of the concentration in the Alleged Offender's urine with 16 µg/ml. Thus, the presence of a Methylhexaneamine in the Alleged Offender's bodily specimen cannot be explained by his taking of Umkalor. Since Dr. Ayotte had explained that Methylhexaneamine can be found in energy supplements and because the Alleged Offender had mentioned to have taken nutritional supplements and drugs given to him by his team physician from February 21 to March 4, 2012, the Complainant requested the Interested ISU Member to ask the team physician for a detailed list of the nutritional supplements and drugs which he had given to the skater from February 21 to March 4, 2012. The Interested ISU Member furnished this list on May 4, 2012. - E-mails Dr. Jane Moran and Dr. Christiane Ayotte, dated April 24 and 29, 2012 Exhibit 7 - E-mails Tokyo laboratory dated April 25 and 26, 2012 Exhibit 8 - Letter ISU/Interested ISU Member dated April 27. 2012 Exhibit 9 - Explanatory Letter of team physician Mr. Vladimir Pustovoy of May 4, 2012, with list ''supporting pharmacological program" including English Translation Exhibit 10 3

As to the knowledge of the Complainant none of the products contained in the list can explain the presence of Methylhexaneamine in the Alleged Offender's bodily specimen. The question of how this substance entered his body thus reminds unanswered to date. IV. Law 1. Methylhexaneamine, as uncontestedly found present in the Alleged Offender's bodily specimen, is contained in the 2012 Prohibited List of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) under class S6. Stimulants / b: Specified Stimulants. 2. According to Article 2.1 of the ISU Anti-Doping Rules, the presence of a prohibited substance in a Skater's bodily specimen constitutes an Anti-Doping Rule violation, unless a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for the otherwise prohibited substance has been granted in accordance with letter D of the ISU Anti-Doping procedures. The Alleged Offender had neither requested a Therapeutic Use Exemption for Methylhexaneamine nor had he declared having taken this medication on his doping control form. 3. According to Article 2 of the ISU Anti-Doping Rules Skaters are responsible for knowing what constitutes an Anti-Doping Rule violation and the substances and methods which have been included in the prohibited list. Article 2 Para 2.1.1 says that it is each Skater's personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body and that Skaters are responsible for any prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers found to be present in their samples. The Alleged Offender purports that he has taken the herbal medicine Umkalor for the treatment of his respiratory disease, not knowing that it contains a prohibited substance. The substance which was found present in the Alleged Offender's bodily specimen is Methylhexaneamine. According to Dr. Christiane Ayotte of the INRS Institute Armand-Frappier in Montreal "pelargonium sidoides" as contained in Umkalor is not known to contain Methylhexaneamine. Dr. Ayotte further pointed out that given the halftime life of Methylhexaneamine not µg/ml, but only ng/ml would still be present in human urine 10 days after its intake. The Tokyo laboratory in charge of analyzing the sample in question gave a rough estimate of the concentration in the Alleged Offender's urine with 16 µg/ml. Thus, the presence of a Methylhexaneamine in the Alleged Offender's bodily specimen cannot be explained by his taking of Umkalor. Another explanation for the finding of Methylhexaneamine might have been the nutritional supplements and drugs given to the skater by the team physician prior to the event in Japan. In his letter of May 4, 2012 (Exhibit 10) the team physician Vladimir Pustovoy explained which medications and drugs he has given to the Russian skaters, including the Alleged Offender, during the training camp prior to the World Junior Speed Skating Championships in Japan. The team physician has added a list called Supporting pharmacological program containing the products he has given to the skaters. None of the products of this list could explain the finding of Methylhexaneamine. Some of the products are simple harmless vitamins. Most of the supplements are only brand names without any content and not specific enough to explain the finding or the absence of Methylhexaneamine. 4. It is undisputed that Kulishnikov committed an anti-doping rule violation within the meaning of Article 2 of the ISU Rules. According to Article 10.2 of the ISU Rules, such a violation is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility, unless the conditions for eliminating or reducing this period, as provided in Articles 10.4. and 10.5, are met. 5. As stated above, Methylhexaneamine is a Specified Substance which appears in category S6b (Specified Stimulants) on the 2012 Prohibited List of the WADA Code. According to Article 10.4 of the ISU Anti-Doping Rules 2010 an elimination or reduction of the period of ineligibility in cases of 4

specified substances under specific circumstances may be conceded. Article 10.4 has two requirements: 1. The skater must establish how the Specified Substance entered his body. 2. Such Specified Substance was not intended to enhance the skater s sport performance or mask the use of a performance-enhancing substance. Regarding the first condition, the commentary to Article 10.4 of the ISU Rules provides that the skater may establish how the Specified Substance entered the body by a balance of probability. In other words, a panel should simply find the explanation of a skater concerning the presence of a Specified Substance more probable than not. At first the skater explained the finding of the specified substance by having taken the herbal medicine Umkalor. According to Dr. Christiane Ayotte of the INRS Institute Armand-Frappier in Montreal "pelargonium sidoides" as contained in Umkalor is not known to contain Methylhexaneamine. Therefore Umkalor cannot explain the finding of Methylhexaneamine. But also the nutritional supplements and drugs given to the skater by the team physician prior to the event in Japan cannot explain the finding of the specified substance. Some of the products are simple harmless vitamins. Most of the supplements listed by the team physician are general brand names without any declaration of ingredients. Therefore the panel is neither convinced by the explanation of the skater nor by the list of medication of the team physician how the specified substance entered the body of the skater. As the skater could not explain how the specified substance entered his body, the first requirement of Article 10.4. is not met. The period of ineligibility cannot be reduced according to Article 10.4 of the ISU Anti-Doping Rules. 6. Article 10.5 admits an elimination or reduction of the period of ineligibility based on exceptional circumstances. Article 10.5.1 is applicable when the skater bears no fault or negligence; Article 10.5.2 is applicable in cases when there is no significant fault or negligence of the skater. But the requirement for both paragraphs is a comprehensible explanation how the prohibited substance entered the body of the skater. The taking of Umkalor could not explain the adverse analytical finding. The medication given by the team physician might have contained the substance Methylhexaneamine. But in order to be able to invoke the physician s error, the skater or the team doctor must produce a medical file that justifies the drug prescription containing the detected substance, its dosage and duration. The list of medications provided by the team physician is not specified enough to explain how Methylhexaneamine entered the system of the skater. The Comment to Article 10.5.1 and 10.5.2 gives some examples of fault and negligence which cannot lead to a reduction of the period of ineligibility: a) a positive test resulting from mislabeled or contaminated vitamin or nutritional supplement (Skaters are responsible for what they ingest (Article 2.1.1) and have been warned against the possibility of supplement contamination); b) the administration of a Prohibited Substance by the Skater s personal physician or trainer without disclosure to the Skater (Skaters are responsible for their choice of medical personnel and for advising medical personnel that they cannot be given any Prohibited Substance). Therefore a reduction of the period of ineligibility according to Article 10.5 is also not applicable. 7. As the conditions for eliminating or reducing the period of ineligibility, as provided in Article 10.4 and 10.5 of the ISU Anti-Doping Rules 2010, are not met, a two years period of ineligibility for the first violation is imposed on the skater. 8. The ineligibility starts according to Article 10.9 of the ISU Anti-Doping Rules 2010. In his letter of April 12, 2012 the skater tried to explain how the prohibited substance entered his system after he has been confronted with the alleged Anti-Doping Rule violation. According to Article 10.9.2 ISU Anti 5

Doping Rules the period of ineligibility may start as early as the date of sample collection, i.e. in this case March 4, 2012. The period of ineligibility will end on March 3, 2014. 9. According to Article 9 the violation of the ISU Anti-Doping Rules in connection with an In- Competition test automatically leads to Disqualification of the result obtained in that competition with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes. Article 11.1 states, that a team shall be disqualified from that competition, if a competing member of the team is found to have committed a violation of the ISU Anti-Doping Rules. Therefore the competitive results of Pavel Kulizhnikov obtained from March 2 to 4, 2012, and the results of the Russian Men Team pursuit (8laps) Qualification on March 4, 2012, at the 2012 ISU World Junior Speed Skating Championships in Obihiro, Japan, are disqualified with all the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prices. V. Costs According to Article 12.2 of the ISU Anti-Doping Rules 2010 the ISU Member shall be obligated to reimburse the ISU for all costs (including but not limited to laboratory fees, hearing and travel expenses) related to a violation of these Anti-Doping Rules committed by a skater affiliated with that member. Therefore the costs of these proceedings, including the laboratory fees of the Anti-Doping testing, have to be borne by the Russian Skating Union. The skater has to bear his own costs. Based on the above considerations the ISU Disciplinary Commission rules as follows: Decision 1. Pavel Kulizhnikov is declared responsible for an Anti-Doping violation, committed on March 4, 2012 at the 2012 ISU World Junior Speed Skating Championships. 2. A period of ineligibility of two years, beginning on March 4, 2012 and ending on March 3, 2014, is imposed on Pavel Kulizhnikov. 3. Pavel Kulizhnikov s competitive results obtained from March 2 to 4, 2012, and the results of the Russian Men Team pursuit (8laps) Qualification on March 4, 2012, at the 2012 ISU World Junior Speed Skating Championships in Obihiro, Japan, are disqualified with all the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prices. 4. The Russian Skating Union has to reimburse the ISU for the costs of these proceedings and the laboratory fees of the Anti-Doping testing. 5. The skater bears his own costs. August 31, 2012 Volker Waldeck Fred Benjamin Dr. Allan Böhm The decision is sent to Pavel Kulizhnikov, Leninastr. 30, 39 Kolomna 140410, Russia, by registered mail against return receipt and to the Interested Member and to the ISU by email. The present decision is subject to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Avenue de Beaumont 2, CH-1012 Lausanne, Switzerland, within 21 days upon receipt of the decision, in accordance with Article 24 Paragraph 12 and Article 25 of the ISU Constitution 2010. 6