WIESCHEMANN | Rechtsanwälte publishes Court of Arbitration for Sport Award CAS 2017/A/4968 Legkov v. International Ski Federation (FIS)

Through earlier media releases by FIS & IOC  and it´s representatives the impression arose in public that the report of Prof. McLaren ( McLaren report)  justifies a “strong suspicion” that the clients of WIESCHEMANN | Rechtsanwälte Alexander Legkov and Evgenyi Belov committed an ADRV, whereas the CAS Panel in its award stated that merely a “reasonable possibility” derives from the report and this is sufficient to justify merely a provisional suspension. The athletes have right that the correct position is published. The reasoning is important for further investigations of Oswald Commission IOC as well.

Although signatory requested repeatedly with reference to R 59 CAS code to make the award public and all other CAS Media Release were issued on the day or the day after the relevant award, the operative part was issued to the parties and made public on 29 May 2017 but the reasoned Arbitral Award is communicated to the parties on 1 September 2017 but not published so far. You´ll find it now at the end of this release.

  1. First of all, the panel is of the opinion that for some Athletes Mclaren report unveiled a relatively comprehensive suite of documentary evidence linking them to Russian Federation´s circumvention of doping controls. However, in these proceedings are merely a small combination of evidence available (para. 232) which may establish reasonable possibility but does not meet the standard of comfortable satisfaction that an individual athlete committed an ADRV. The defence and the athletes appreciate the efforts of IOC disciplinary commission to clarify the facts by further investigations. We are convinced that the examination will lean to exoneration of our clients. Without new facts, which are uncovered and unknown so far, the athletes will be restored to the status quo ante and free of any restrictions after 31 October 2017.
  2. In this regard, to demonstrate that urine samples had been tampered with to replace the urine, would not indicate “new facts” from the panels point of view. In contrast, the panel was already convinced that existing evidence for tampering is already adequate. (para. 109) and assessed this as not sufficient to meet the standard of comfortable satisfaction. To demonstrate that an athletes sample was tampered by a third party means not that the athlete committed an ADRV himself. From communication and interviews it seems to the defense that Denis Oswald puts his focus on more comfortable evidence that the bottles were illegal opened and reclosed. However this fact was discussed in the CAS hearing but never seriously doubted by the defense after the McLaren report and EDP 0902 was published. If this were the result of the IOC investigations, it would have no influence for the individual athletes from the perspective of the CAS.


  1. Merely the panel explained that in contrast to the defense assertions it would be established that Mr. Velikodny and Ms Rodionova were in direct contact to the athletes mentioned in the duchess list. (para. 219). Unfortunately, the panel disregards that Dr Rodchenkovs evidence how the information’s on the DCF came to him and agent Blokhin are contradictory and we discussed the contradictions within the hearing.

Both versions are in contradiction to each other. The panel chose one version without explaining why this version should be more likely than the other.

In fact, there was neither a FSB Agent required nor a snapp taken by an athlete. Dr Rodchenkov himself being the director of the laboratory was at any time in the position to provide information about the sample numbers from the doping control forms and the Berec-Kit. The doping concealing system in Moscow laboratory by which thousands of dirty samples have been identified and linked to the athletes by Mr. Velikodny and Dr. Rodchenkov without any participation or support by the athletes worked exactly the same way.

As a result, actually there is no consistent narrative that the information came exclusively from the athletes themselves and that the fact that the magicians opened the right bottles indicates that the athletes must be involved.


  1. Signatory reviewed step by step new translation of documents published in evidence disclosure package. So far it must be assumed that some athletes who prior to the Olympic Games seemingly used all three substances from which the duchess cocktail was designed and who were protected by the doping concealment system, are not mentioned in duchess list although they participated in Sochi. According to the alleged meaning of the list it can´t really be.


  1. Besides the wash out period of duchess list was evidently tested. In contradiction to the narrative of Prof. McLaren in Report I, p. 50, the detection window was not shorter than 11 days. Because of the close meshed doping tests, always shorter than 11 days, bot of our clients, in particular Alexander Legkov, can show that could not have taken the duchess cocktail. In this case the Federation´s proceeding against them must fail from the perspective of CAS (para. 224)


6. So far defence is not aware of any evidence that the urine in the bottles which are linked to my clients have origin from them.

Full document Court of Arbitration for Sport Award CAS 2017/A/4968 Legkov v. International Ski Federation (FIS)  is here:

CAS award Legkov

Leave a Reply