TAS - Laudo Arbitral CAS 2020-O-6689 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency

CAS 2020/O/6689 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by the

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

sitting in the following composition:

President: Judge Mark L. Williams SC, Judge, Sydney, Australia Arbitrators: Prof. Avv. Luigi Fumagalli, Professor and Attorney-at-Law, Milan, Italy

Dr Hamid Gharavi, Attorney-at-Law, Paris, France Ad hoc Clerk: Mr Alistair Oakes, Barrister, Sydney, Australia in the arbitration between World Anti-Doping Agency, Canada Represented by Mr Ross Wenzel and Mr Nicolas Zbinden, Attorneys-at-Law with Kellerhals Carrard in Lausanne, Switzerland and Dr Tom Hickman QC, Barrister in London, United Kingdom Claimant and Russian Anti-Doping Agency, Russia Represented by Mr Philippe Bärtsch, Dr Christopher Boog, Dr Anna Kozmenko, and Ms Anya George, Attorneys-at-Law with Schellenberg Wittmer in Geneva, Switzerland Respondent

andCAS 2020/O/6689 – Page 2

International Olympic Committee, Switzerland Represented by Prof. Antonio Rigozzi, Attorney -at-Law with Levy Kaufmann -Kohler in Geneva, Switzerland

International Paralympic Committee, Germany Represented by Prof. Antonio Rigozzi, Attorney -at-Law with Levy Kaufmann -Kohler in Geneva, Switzerland

Russia Olympic Committee, Russia Represented by Dr Claude Ramoni, Attorney-at-Law with Libra Law in Lausanne, Switzerland

Russia Paralympic Committee, Russia Represented by Dr Fabrice Robert-Tissot, Attorney-at-Law with Bonnard Lawson in Geneva, Switzerland

European Olympic Committees, Italy

Russia Paralympic Committee, Russia Represented by Dr Fabrice Robert-Tissot, Attorney-at-Law with Bonnard Lawson in Geneva, Switzerland

European Olympic Committees, Italy Represented by Mr Marc Theisen, Attorney -at-Law with Theisen & Marques in Lëtzebuerg, Luxembourg

International Ice Hockey Federation, Switzerland Represented by Ms Ashley Elhert, Esq., Legal Counsel

Russian Ice Hockey Federation, Russia Represented by Mr Marc Cavaliero and Ms Carol Etter, Attorneys -at-Law with Cavaliero & Associates in Zurich, Switzerland

Lilya Akhaimova, Regina Isachkina, Elena Osipova, Arina Averina, Olga Ivanova, Yana Pavlova, Dina Averina, Yulia Ka plina, Alexey Rubtsov, Ilya Borodin, Evgeniya Kosetskaya, Ekatarina Selezneva, Artur Dalaloyan, Elena Krasovskaia, Nikita Shleikher, Alina Davletova , Evgeny Kuznetsov , Vladimir Sidorenko , Evgenija Davydova , Sayana Lee, Inna Stepanova , Inna Deriglazova , Vladimir Malkov , Maria Tolkacheva , Yana Egorian, Polina Mikhailova, Dmitry Ushakov, Vladislav Grinev, Andrei Minakov, Sofiya Velikaya, Kristina Ilinykh, Nikita Nagornyy, and Andrey Yudin, Russia Represented by Mr Mike Morgan and Mr William Sternheimer, Attorneys-at-Law with Morgan Sports Law in London, United Kingdom and Lausanne, Switzerland and Mr Ali Malek QC, Barrister in London, United Kingdom

Sasha Gusev, Daniil Sotnikov, Ilya Borisov, Igor Ovsyannikov, Nachyn Coular, Valeria

Sports Law in London, United Kingdom and Lausanne, Switzerland and Mr Ali Malek QC, Barrister in London, United Kingdom

Sasha Gusev, Daniil Sotnikov, Ilya Borisov, Igor Ovsyannikov, Nachyn Coular, Valeria Koblova, Elizaveta Sorokina, Ivan Golubkov, Elena Krutova, and Viktoria Potapova , Russia Represented by Mr Marc Cavaliero and Ms Carol Etter, Attorneys -at-Law with Cavaliero & Associates in Zurich, Switzerland

Intervening PartiesCAS 2020/O/6689 – Page 3

I. PARTIES

1. The World Anti -Doping Agency ( “WADA” or the “Claimant”) is a private law foundation constituted under Swiss law in 1999 to promote and coordinate at international level the fight against doping in sport . WADA has its registered seat in Lausanne, Switzerland, and its headquarters in Montreal, Canada.

2. The Russian Anti -Doping Agency ( “RUSADA” or the “Respondent”) is the National Anti-Doping Organisation in Russia and a signatory to the World Anti -Doping Code (“WADC”). Its registered office is in Moscow, Russia.

3. WADA and RUSADA are collectively referred to as the “Parties”.

4. The International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) is the world governing body of Olympic sport having its registered office in Lausanne, Switzerland.

5. The International Paralympic Committee ( “IPC”) is the world governing body of the Paralympic Movement having its registered office in Bonn, Germany.

6. The Russia Olympic Committee ( “ROC”) is the National Olympic Committee representing the Russian Federation within the Olympic Movement having its registered office in Moscow, Russia.

7. The Russia Paralympic C ommittee ( “RPC”) is the National Paralympic Committee representing the Russian Federation having its registered office in Moscow, Russia. It is a recognized a member of the IPC.

office in Moscow, Russia.

7. The Russia Paralympic C ommittee ( “RPC”) is the National Paralympic Committee representing the Russian Federation having its registered office in Moscow, Russia. It is a recognized a member of the IPC.

8. The European Olympic Committees (“EOC”) is an organisation consisting of National Olympic Committees from Europe (including the ROC).

9. The International Ice Hockey Federation ( “IIHF”) is the world governing body administering the sport of ice hockey. Its registered office is in Zurich, Switzerland.

10. The Russian Ice Hockey Federati on ( “RIHF”) is the governing body overseeing ice hockey in Russia. It is a recognized member of the IIHF. Its registered office is in

Moscow, Russia.

11. Lilya Akhaimova, Regina Isachkina, Elena Osipova, Arina Averina, Olga Ivanova, Yana Pavlova, Dina Averina, Yulia Kaplina, Alexey Rubtsov, Ilya Borodin, Evgeniya

Kosetskaya, Ekatarina Selezneva, Artur Dalaloyan, Elena Krasovskaia, Nikita Shleikher, Alina Davletova, Evgeny Kuznetsov, Vladimir Sidorenko, Evgenija Davydova, Sayana Lee, Inna Stepanova, Inna Deriglazova, V ladimir Malkov, Maria Tolkacheva, Yana Egorian, Polina Mikhailova, Dmitry Ushakov, Vladislav Grinev, Andrei Minakov, Sofiya Velikaya, Kristina Ilinykh, Nikita Nagornyy, and Andrey Yudin are a collective group of 33 elite, internationally -ranked Russian ath letes who have qualified, or are likely to qualify, for participation at 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games and/or World Championship events in the next four years (the “33 Athletes Group”).

Yudin are a collective group of 33 elite, internationally -ranked Russian ath letes who have qualified, or are likely to qualify, for participation at 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games and/or World Championship events in the next four years (the “33 Athletes Group”).

12. Sasha Gusev, Daniil Sotnikov, Ilya Borisov, Igor Ovsyannikov, Nachyn Coular, Valeria Koblova, Elizaveta Sorokina, Ivan Golubkov, Elena Krutova, and Viktoria PotapovaCAS 2020/O/6689 – Page 4 are a similar collective group of 11 elite, internationally -ranked Russian athletes who have qualified, or are likely to qualify, for participation at the 2020 Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games and/or World Championship events in the next four years (the “11

Athletes Group”).

13. The IOC, IPC, ROC, RPC, EOC, IIHF, RIHF, 33 Athletes Group and 11 Athletes Group are collectively referred to as the “Intervening Parties”.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

14. Below is a summary of the relevant facts and allegations based on the written submissions, pleadings and evidence adduced by the Parties and Intervening Parties prior to, and at, the hearing . Additional facts and allegations found in the written submissions, pleadings and evidence may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion that follows.

15. WADA, RUSADA and the Intervening Parties provided the Panel with extensive pleadings and written submissions, totalling more than 1,500 pages. In total, the submissions, statements, expert reports, and factual and legal exhibits exceeded 48,000 pages. While the Panel has considered all submissions and evidence in the present proceedings, it refers in this Award only to the submissions and evidence it considers necessary to explain its reasoning.

16. Relevantly, while the background facts relating to this Award concern a lengthy narrative of allegations of, and investigations into , systemic doping within Russian

proceedings, it refers in this Award only to the submissions and evidence it considers necessary to explain its reasoning.

16. Relevantly, while the background facts relating to this Award concern a lengthy narrative of allegations of, and investigations into , systemic doping within Russian sport, this Award primarily concerns RUSADA’s alleged non-compliance of a critical requirement under the International Standard for Code Compliance by Signatories (the “ISCCS”) to procure the delivery to WADA of authentic da ta from the Moscow AntiDoping Laboratory (the “Moscow Laboratory”).

17. In these proceedings, WADA has sought a finding of such non -compliance and the imposition of a number of consequences (the “Signatory Consequences ”) deriving therefrom. RUSADA opposed WADA’s claims. It denies that the data retrieved by WADA from the Moscow Laboratory was manipulated and, in the alternative, denies any responsibility for manipulations and challenges the validity of the Signatory Consequences sought by WADA . As a result of the Parties ’ submissions, the issues examined by the Panel in this Award can be broadly summarised as: a. the validity of the ISCCS and WADA ’s requirement that RUSADA procure the delivery to WADA of authentic data from the Moscow Laboratory; b. whether RUSADA complied with that requirement; and c. if not, what Signatory Consequences can and should be imposed.

A. The World Anti-Doping Code and the International Standards

18. A significant issue in these proceedings is the validity of amendments to the WADC adopted by the WADA Foundation Board in November 2017 and the associatedCAS 2020/O/6689 – Page 5 approval of the ISCCS by the WADA Executive Committee . It is therefore useful to set out a brief history of the WADC and the International Standards.

a. The World Anti-Doping Code

19. The WADC is, according to its terms, “the fundamental and universal document upon which the World Anti-Doping Program in sport is based. The purpose of the Code is to

set out a brief history of the WADC and the International Standards. a. The World Anti-Doping Code

19. The WADC is, according to its terms, “the fundamental and universal document upon which the World Anti-Doping Program in sport is based. The purpose of the Code is to advance the anti -doping effort through universal harmonization of core anti -doping elements.” It was first adopted by the WADA Foundation Board on 5 March 2003 and took effect on 1 January 2004 (the “2003 WADC”). The 2003 WADC was the version of the WADC in effect when RUSADA signed its declaration of acceptance on 27 September 2008.

20. Article 23.6 of the 2003 WADC permitted amendments to the WADC after appropriate consultation with athletes, Signatories and governments, to be approved by a two-thirds majority of the WADA Foundation Board. As set out below, such amendments have been made on a number of o ccasions (and s imilar amendment provisions have been contained in those subsequent versions). Revisions to the WADC have included:

a. A revision adopted by the WADA Foundation Board on 17 November 2007, which took effect on 1 January 2009 (the “2009 WADC”). b. A revision adopted by the WADA Foundation Board on 15 November 2013, which took effect on 1 January 2015 (the “2015 WADC”). The 2015 WADC has been the subject of two sets of amendments adopted by WADA’s Foundation Board:

1. Amendments adopted in November 2017, which took effect on 1 April

2018. The validity of those amendments is disputed in these proceedings. The version of the 2015 WADC incorporating those amendments is officially referred to as the “2015 World Anti -Doping Code with 2018 amendments ” but is referred to in this Award as the

“2018 WADC”.

proceedings. The version of the 2015 WADC incorporating those amendments is officially referred to as the “2015 World Anti -Doping Code with 2018 amendments ” but is referred to in this Award as the “2018 WADC”. ii. Amendments adopted in May 2019, which took effect on 1 June 2019. The version of the 2015 WADC incorporating these amendments is officially referred to as the “2015 World Anti -Doping Code with 2019 amendments”. It is not relevant to these proceedings.

21. A further revision of the WADC adopted by WADA ’s Foundation Board on 7 November 2019 is due to come into force on 1 January 2021 (the “2021 WADC”).

b. International Standards

22. The introductory pages of each of the 2003 WADC, 2009 WADC and 2015 WADC provided for the development of “International Standards” “for different technical and operational areas within the anti-doping program”, to be revised from time to time by

the WADA Executive Committee.

23. There are presently six international standards, which include:CAS 2020/O/6689 – Page 6

a. The International Standard for Laboratories ( “ISL”). The most recent version of the ISL came into force on 1 January 2015. b. The International Standard for Testing and Investigations (“ISTI”), which came into force on 1 January 2016. c. The ISCCS, which came into force on 1 April 2018 and the validity of which is disputed in these proceedings. A revision of the ISCCS is due to come into force on 1 January 2021 (the “2021 ISCCS”). d. The International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information (“ISPPPI”). The most recent version of the ISPPPI came into force on 1 June 2018. e. The International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (“ISTUE”). The most

d. The International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information (“ISPPPI”). The most recent version of the ISPPPI came into force on 1 June 2018. e. The International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (“ISTUE”). The most recent version of the ISTUE came into force on 1 January 2019. f. The International Standard for the Prohibited List ( “The List”). The most recent version of the List came into force on 1 January 2020.

B. Exposure of Systemic Doping Practices in Russian Sport (2015-2016)

a. Independent Commission and declaration that RUSADA was non -compliant with WADC

24. In December 2014, a German television channel broadcast a documentary concerning the existence of sophisticated systemic doping practices within the All-Russia Athletics Federation, the governing body for athletics in Russia.

25. Following that broadcast, WADA e stablished an independent commission chaired by Mr Richard Pound QC (the “Independent Commission”) to investigate the allegations made in the broadcast . The terms of reference required the Independent Commission

(see Exhibit C-12, page 2): to conduct an independent investigation into doping practices; corrupt practices around sample collection and results management; and, other ineffective administration of anti-doping processes that implicate Russia, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), athletes, coaches, trainers, doctors and other members of athletes’ entourages; as well as, the accredited laboratory based in Moscow and the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA).

26. On 9 November 2015, the Independent Commission submitted a report to WADA titled “The Independent Commission Report #1 – Final Report ”. In the report, which exceeded 300 pages, the Independent Commission (Exhibit C-12, pages 9-10): … identified systemic failures within the IAAF and Russia that prevent or diminish the possibility of an effective anti -doping program, to the extent that neither ARAF, RUSADA, nor the Russian Federation can be considered Code -

… identified systemic failures within the IAAF and Russia that prevent or diminish the possibility of an effective anti -doping program, to the extent that neither ARAF, RUSADA, nor the Russian Federation can be considered Codecompliant.CAS 2020/O/6689 – Page 7 … confirmed the existence of widespread cheating through the use of doping substances and methods to ensure, or enhance the likelihood of, victory for athletes and teams.

27. The Independent Commission also made specific findings in respect of RUSADA

(Chapter 1 2) and the Moscow Laboratory, which was the only WADA -accredited laboratory in Russia (Chapter 13). The Independent Commission recommended, among other things, that RUSADA be declared non-compliant with the WADC (page 38) and that the WADA accreditation of the Moscow Laboratory be revoked (page 37).

28. On 18 November 2015, based on the recommendations of the Independent Commission, which were endorsed by WADA ’s Independent Compliance Review Committee (the “CRC”), the WADA Foundation Board declared RUSADA non -compliant with the WADC and suspended the accreditation of the Moscow Laboratory.

b. McLaren Reports – the ‘disappearing positive methodology ’ and ‘sample swapping methodology’

29. In May 2016, an American television channel and the New York Times published allegations made by the former director of the Moscow Laboratory, Dr Grigory Rodchenkov, regarding the alleged existence of a sophisticated state-sponsored doping program in Russian sport.

30. That month, WADA appointed Prof. Richard McLaren, who had been a member of the Independent Commission, to investigate Dr Rodchenkov’s allegations.

31. On 18 July 2016, Prof. McLaren delivered his first report (the “First McLaren Report”).

The three ‘key findings’ of that report were as follows (Exhibit C-16, page 1):

1. The Moscow Laboratory operated, for the protection of doped Russian athletes, within a State -dictated failsafe system, described in the report as the

The three ‘key findings’ of that report were as follows (Exhibit C-16, page 1):

1. The Moscow Laboratory operated, for the protection of doped Russian athletes, within a State -dictated failsafe system, described in the report as the

Disappearing Positive Methodology.

2. The Sochi Laboratory operated a unique sample swapping methodology to enable doped Russian athletes to compete at the Games.

3. The Ministry of Sport directed, controlled and oversaw the manipulation of athlete’s analytical results or sample swapping, with the active participation and assistance of the FSB, CSP, and both Moscow and Sochi Laboratories.

32. The “disappearing positive methodology ” was described in Chapter 3 of the First McLaren Report. Relevantly, the Moscow Laboratory would conduct an initial analytical screen ing of samples collected from Russian athletes. If that screen ing revealed a likely Adverse Analytical Finding, a liaison person would obtain the identity of the athlete from RUSADA (by providin g the bottle number of the sample). The athlete’s identity would be provided to the Russian Deputy Minister for Sport, Deputy Minister Nagornykh, who would then issue an order that the sample be “saved” or “quarantined. Where a “save” order was given, the Moscow Laboratory would take no further steps in analysis of the sample and it would be reported as negative in WADA’s Anti-Doping Administration & Management Systems ( “ADAMS”) (a web -basedCAS 2020/O/6689 – Page 8 database management system for use by WADA ’s stakeholders) . Personnel of the Moscow Laboratory would then falsify the result in the laboratory ’s own Laboratory Information Management System ( “LIMS”) (the database used by the Moscow Laboratory to store results of testing of samples) to show a negative result.

33. The “sample swapping methodology” was described in Chapter 5 of the First McLaren Report. In short, this methodology, which was used at the 2014 Sochi Olympic Games,

Laboratory to store results of testing of samples) to show a negative result.

33. The “sample swapping methodology” was described in Chapter 5 of the First McLaren Report. In short, this methodology, which was used at the 2014 Sochi Olympic Games, involved opening Russian athletes ’ sample bottles and swapping out dirty urine with clean urine. This was made possible by drilling a “mouse hole” between the aliquoting room in the secure area of the laboratory used at the Sochi games and an adjacent “operations” room. Sample bottles were passed through the ‘mouse hole’ overnight and the urine samples would be replaced.

34. On 18 July 2016, WADA ’s Executive Committee confirmed that RUSADA would remain non-compliant and its staffing and independence would be further reviewed.

35. On 9 December 2016, Prof. McLaren delivered his second report (the “Second McLaren Report”). In that report, Prof. McLaren affirmed that “[t]he key findings of the 1st Report remain unchanged” and that (Exhibit C-18, page 1): An institutional conspiracy existed across summer and winter sports athletes who participated with Russ ian officials within the Ministry of Sport and its infrastructure, such as the RUSADA, CSP [the Center of Sports Preparation of National Teams of Russia] and the Moscow Laboratory, along with the FSB [the Russian Federal Security Service]. The summer and winter sports athletes were not acting individually but within an organised infrastructure as reported on in the 1st Report.

36. Together with the Second McLaren Report, Prof. McLaren published Evidence Disclosure Packages ( “EDPs”) containing evidence relating to athletes he considered were involved in or benefitted from the above schemes. The Second McLaren Report also noted that Prof. McLaren had (Exhibit C-18, page 12): sought but was unable to obtain Moscow Laboratory server or sample data. On request, such computer records were unavailable to [him] and the samples in the storage area had been sealed off by the Investigative Committee of the

Russian Federation.

also noted that Prof. McLaren had (Exhibit C-18, page 12): sought but was unable to obtain Moscow Laboratory server or sample data. On request, such computer records were unavailable to [him] and the samples in the storage area had been sealed off by the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation.

C. The Roadmap to Reinstatement, 2015 LIMS copy, and Reinstatement of RUSADA as a Code-compliant Signatory (2016-2017)

a. Reinstatement requirements

37. In January 2017, the 18 November 2015 declaration by the WADA Foundation Board that RUSADA was non-compliant with the WADC remained extant. In order to rebuild a credible and sustainable anti -doping system in Russia, WADA developed a detailed set of criteria, fulfilment of which would enable RUSADA to be reinstated to the list of Code-compliant Signatories (the “Roadmap Requirements”).CAS 2020/O/6689 – Page 9

38. The Roadmap Requirements were amended from time to time. Relevantly, on 10 October 2017, in a letter addressed to the ROC, RPC, the Russian Minister of Sport and the Russian Independent Public Anti -Doping Commission, WADA confirmed the outstanding Roadmap Requirements, which included the following (referred to herein as the “Data/Samples Requirement”) (Exhibit C-20): The Russian Government must provide access for appropriate entities to the stored urine samples in the Moscow Laboratory, including but not limited to the electronic data for all sample analyses conducted from 2011 -2015 in the Moscow Laboratory. b. 2015 LIMS copy

39. WADA has asserted, and it is not disputed, that t he Data/Samples Requirement was imposed following WADA’s receipt of an extract of the Moscow Laboratory’s LIMS data from a whistle-blower. That extract was received by WADA in October 2017 and related to samples obtained in the period from January 2012 to August 2015 (the “2015

imposed following WADA’s receipt of an extract of the Moscow Laboratory’s LIMS data from a whistle-blower. That extract was received by WADA in October 2017 and related to samples obtained in the period from January 2012 to August 2015 (the “2015 LIMS copy”)

40. The 2015 LIMS copy was found to include presumptive adverse analytical findings made on the initial testing of samples which had not been reported in ADAMS or followed up with confirmation testing. This was considered by WADA to corroborate the findings in the First McLaren Report of the ‘disappearing positive methodology’.

41. Access to the information sought in the Data/Samples Requirement would enable WADA to resolve suspicions in respect of the presumptive adverse analytical findings in the 2015 LIMS copy by allowing identification of any true adverse analytical findings and eliminating other suspicious results.

c. Non-satisfaction of Data/Samples Requirement

42. By letters dated 1 and 2 November 2017 respectively, ROC President Alexander Zhukov and Russian Minister of Sport, Minister Pavel Kolob kov, wrote to WADA explaining, among other things, that WADA could not be provided access to the samples in the Moscow Laboratory. This was because, the letters stated, the Russian Investigative Committee had initiated a criminal investigation in respect of the doping allegations addressed in the McLaren Reports and the provision of the samples to WADA would contravene Russian domestic laws , as the samples were potential evidence in the investigation. That is, procurement of the samples was not something over which RUSADA or the Minister for Sport exercised any authority or control.

43. Those letters did not address provision of the electronic data sought in the Data/Samples

Requirement.

44. By letter dated 10 November 2017, the CRC unanimously maintained its recommendation to the WADA Foundation Board that RUSADA not be reinstated to the list of Code -compliant Signatories unless and until the remaining Roadmap Requirements (including the Data/Samples Requirement) had been fully and

44. By letter dated 10 November 2017, the CRC unanimously maintained its recommendation to the WADA Foundation Board that RUSADA not be reinstated to the list of Code -compliant Signatories unless and until the remaining Roadmap Requirements (including the Data/Samples Requirement) had been fully and satisfactorily resolved.CAS 2020/O/6689 – Page 10

45. On 5 December 2017, based on the findings of a commission mandated by the IOC to investigate the matters that were the subject of the McLaren Reports (the “Schmid Commission”), the IOC Executive Board suspended the ROC and its President, bar red all Ministry of Sport officials from the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Games and fined the ROC USD 15 million. It also set up a mechanism for Russian athletes who could demonstrate they were no t tainted by the doping schemes to participate in the 2018

PyeongChang Olympic Games as “Olympic Athletes from Russia”. The ROC did not appeal against or otherwise challenge that decision.

46. Following these matters, there was a period during which no relevant progress was made in addressing the Data/Samples Requirement.

47. In May 2018, the CRC again considered the outstanding Roadmap Requirements, concluding that no progress had been made in respect of the two outstanding Roadmap Requirements, being public acceptance of the findings of the First and Second McLaren Reports that an institutionalised doping scheme existed and the Data/Samples Requirement. On the basis that both of those conditions remained outstanding, the CRC again unanimously recommended that RUSADA not be reinstated to the list of Codecompliant Signatories.

d. Reinstatement of RUSADA

48. On 22 June 2018, WADA sent a letter to Minister Kolobkov indicating that WADA would consider the Data/Samples Requirement satisfied if the Russian Investigative Committee unconditionally agreed to the provision of the following data and samples at an agreed time in 2018: a. an authentic copy of the LIMS data and a copy of the raw analytical data linked to

would consider the Data/Samples Requirement satisfied if the Russian Investigative Committee unconditionally agreed to the provision of the following data and samples at an agreed time in 2018: a. an authentic copy of the LIMS data and a copy of the raw analytical data linked to the initial and confirmation testing procedure on those samples contained in the LIMS data; and b. access to those samples which are identified by the raw data as being true Adverse Analytical Findings, for re-analysis purposes.

49. On 13 September 2018, Minister Kolobkov responded to WADA’s 22 June 2018 letter, stating (Exhibit C-31): After the re-instatement of RUSADA and the consent of the Russian Investigative Committee, we will provide as soon as possible to an independent expert, agreeable to WADA and the Investigative Committee, the access to the analytical equipment to retrieve (under the supervision of the Russian Investigative Committee and under conditions that preserve the integrity of the evidence) an authentic copy of the LIMS data and of the raw analytical data mentioned in your letter. If based on the LIMS data and the raw data, potential Adverse Analytical Findings are identified in respect of samples stored in the laboratory sealed by the Investigative Committee we will work in a spirit of cooperation with WADA and the Investigative Committee and in compliance with the Russian Criminal Procedural Code to enable the independent re-testing of these samples in accordance with the International Standard for Laboratories.CAS 2020/O/6689 – Page 11

50. Although this was not an unconditional agreement, o n 20 September 2018, consistent with a recommendation by the CRC, the WADA Executive Committee decided to reinstate RUSADA as compliant with the WADC, subject to two post-reinstatement conditions (referred together as the “Post-Reinstatement Conditions ”), namely that RUSADA and the Russian Ministry of Sport: a. would “procure” that the authentic LIMS data of the Moscow Laboratory (the

conditions (referred together as the “Post-Reinstatement Conditions ”), namely that RUSADA and the Russian Ministry of Sport: a. would “procure” that the authentic LIMS data of the Moscow Laboratory (the “Moscow Data”) would be received by WADA no later than 31 December 2018 (the “Post-Reinstatement Data Requirement”); and b. would “procure” that any re -analysis of samples required by WADA following review of the Moscow Data is completed by no later than 30 June 2019.

51. By letters dated 25 September