TAS - CAS ADD 46 de 2022

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2022/ADD/46 United World Wrestling (UWW) v. Nathan Dyamin Jackson, award of 29 November 2022 (operative part of 13 May 2022)

Panel: Mrs Susan Ahern (Ireland), Sole Arbitrator

Wrestling Doping (boldenone) Burden and standard of proof Source of the prohibited substance and intentional doping

1. The anti-doping organization has the burden of establishing that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) has occurred. The standard of proof shall be to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. Facts relating to an ADRV may be established by any reliable means including any reliable analytical data from either an A or B Sample establishing the presence of a prohibited substance. Where an ADRV has been established the burden of proof then shifts to the athlete to prove either that the ADRV should not be considered as such, that it was unintentional or that the applicable period of ineligibility can be reduced or eliminated. In that case, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probabilities. If the athlete is to eliminate the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility he must meet the threshold test required under the No Fault or Negligence standard i.e. demonstrate that his ADRV was not intentional and the source of the prohibited substance in the sample.

2. Under the WADA Code, although the requirement of the proof of the source of the prohibited substance is not mandatory, it remains a crucial factor in deciding whether the athlete has succeeded in discharging his burden of proof that the violation was not intentional and that consequently he bore Nor Fault or Negligence. Yet in some cases the proof of the source of the prohibited substance cannot be established. Thus, in a case of meat contamination due to the consumption of the subject meat, the athlete has to demonstrate on the basis of the objective circumstances of the ADRV and his

behaviour, that circumstances existed which counteract to a sufficient degree, the likelihood of intentional doping. He must also offer persuasive evidence that the explanation he proffers is more likely than not to be correct, by providing specific, objective and persuasive evidence in support of his submission such as (i) scientific evidence and expertise to determine that it is more likely than not that boldenone is used as a growth promotor in livestock in the relevant country and that the concentration levels of boldenone in his sample are consistent with contamination of meat consumed in the relevant country, and (ii) other evidential factors which contribute to the general circumstances of the case such as the fact that the prohibited substances found in the athlete’s sample was detected among 10% of the total number of athletes tested and, the delayed notification of his positive test which was not CAS 2022/ADD/46 2 UWW v. Nathan Dyamin Jackson, award of 29 November 2022 (operative part of 13 May 2022) satisfactorily explained and may well have caused potentially relevant evidence regarding the source of the prohibited substance to become unavailable to the athlete. Fairness suggests that the delay should be construed in favour of the athlete.

I. PARTIES

1. United World Wrestling (“UWW”) is the international governing body for the sport of wrestling.

2. Nathan Dyamin Jackson (the “Athlete”) is an American wrestler, a two-time All-American and held a UWW license in 2021.

Together the “Parties”.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. UWW is a Signatory to the World Anti-Doping Code (“WADC”) and has enacted the United World Wrestling’s Anti-Doping Rules (“UWW ADR”). While UWW has delegated the implementation of the UWW anti-doping programme to the International Testing Agency (“ITA”), such delegation includes, inter alia, the Results Management and subsequent prosecution of Adverse Analytical Findings (“AAFs”) arising out of anti-doping samples

collected from wrestling athletes under the jurisdiction of the UWW. Notwithstanding such delegation UWW remains responsible for WADC compliance in connection with all aspects of the UWW ADR.

4. Pursuant to Article 8.1.2.1 of the UWW ADR, the ITA, on behalf of UWW, filed a Request to the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the “CAS ADD”) to rule on the Athlete’s Adverse Analytical Finding (“AAF”).

5. The Athlete is considered to be an International Athlete-Level Athlete within the meaning of

the UWW ADR.

6. Notwithstanding that the ITA is acting on its behalf, UWW is, in accordance with the UWW ADR, considered to be the party asserting any ADRV and for the purpose of any actions taken within the ADR Results Management process, including proceedings in front of the hearing body or in any other matter.

7. This matter arises from analysis conducted on the urine sample No.4501069 collected from the Athlete during an In-Competition Doping Control test on 29 May 2021 at the Senior Pan American Championships (the “Sample”). The analysis of the Sample resulted in an AAF for boldenone and metabolite.

CAS 2022/ADD/46 3

UWW v. Nathan Dyamin Jackson, award of 29 November 2022 (operative part of 13 May 2022)

8. Boldenone is an anabolic androgenic steroid. It is prohibited at all times according to S1.1 of the 2021 WADA International Standard Prohibited List (the “WADA List”). It is also classified as a non-Specified Substance.

9. The factual background was agreed between the Parties. Below is a summary of the relevant facts and allegations based on the Parties’ written submissions, pleadings and evidence adduced at the hearing on 13 May 2022 (the “Hearing”). Additional facts and allegations found in the Parties’ written submissions, pleadings and evidence may be set out, where relevant, in

connection with the legal discussion that follows. While the Sole Arbitrator has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments, and evidence submitted by the parties in the present proceedings, she refers in her Award only to the submissions and evidence she considers necessary to explain her reasoning.

10. The Athlete competed for Indiana University and was the winner of the 2021 Senior Pan American Championships (the “Competition”), which took place between 27-30 May 2021 in Guatemala City, Guatemala, where he competed in the freestyle-senior 92kg weight class discipline.

11. The Athlete arrived in Guatemala City, Guatemala, on 25 May 2021. Prior to his arrival in Guatemala City, the Athlete was in Belle Mead, New Jersey, USA. The Athlete stayed at the Hotel Conquistador, with the rest of the U.S.A. wrestling team where he said he ate most of his meals in the days leading up to the Sample collection.

12. On 29 May 2021, the Athlete competed in the qualification rounds and finals of the freestyle discipline in the 92kg weight class, in which he won the gold medal. Following this Competition, the Athlete provided the Sample. The mission was carried out under the Testing Authority and Results Management Authority of UWW.

13. The Athlete declared on his Doping Control Form (“DCF”) that he had (i) not used any medications or supplements in the seven days prior to his Doping Control and (ii) that the Sample collection was undertaken in accordance with the relevant World Anti-Doping Agency

(“WADA”) International Standards.

14. On 29 June 2021, the WADA-accredited laboratory in Montreal, Canada (Laboratoire de contrôle du dopage INRS - Centre Armand Frappier Santé Biotechnologie), where the Sample was analysed, reported that the Athlete’s A Sample had returned an AAF for boldenone and

metabolite (estimated at 4ng/mL and 1ng/mL, respectively): - Result A Sample: “IRMS results consistent with the exogenous origin of boldenone (-29.5‰) v. pregnanediol (-17.4‰) and 16-enol (-17.6‰). Boldenone and metabolite (respective roughly estimated levels 4 ng/mL and 1 ng/mL). Results reported on certificate of analysis no 21L03041HA”. - Specific gravity (SG) of the urine sample: 1.029.

CAS 2022/ADD/46 4

UWW v. Nathan Dyamin Jackson, award of 29 November 2022 (operative part of 13 May 2022)

15. In accordance with the WADA Technical Document - Detection of Synthetic Forms of Endogenous Anabolic Androgenic Steroids by GC/C/IRMS (“TD2021IRMS”), Samples with a concentration of boldenone and metabolites between 2.5ng/mL and 30 ng/mL must undergo GC/C/IRMS analysis to determine whether the source of the substance is exogenous or endogenous. In the Athlete’s case, the concentration of boldenone and metabolite in his A Sample was roughly estimated at 4 ng/ml. The Laboratory performed a GC/C/IRMS analysis, which confirmed the exogenous origin of the Prohibited Substance, boldenone.

16. The Athlete had not provided any other anti-doping samples prior to 29 May 2021.

17. On 2 December 2021, the ITA, on behalf of the UWW, notified the Athlete of his AAF (the “AAF Notification”). The Athlete was informed that, due to the classification of boldenone as a non-Specified Substance, a Provisional Suspension was imposed against him with immediate effect.

18. On 9 December 2021, the Athlete sought the analysis of his B Sample. On the same date, the

ITA obtained the menu from the Hotel Conquistador (the “Hotel”), which indicated the food that was served on the days that the Athlete was staying there with his team.

19. On 16 December 2021, the Athlete indicated to the ITA his position that the AAF should have been reported as an Atypical Finding (“ATF”) and not as an AAF. In support of this position, the Athlete cited Appendix B of WADA’s Guidelines for the International Standard for Results Management (December 2020) at Annex B – Investigation of Atypical Findingsindicates as follows: “6. Boldenone In addition to the possible reporting of an ATF for boldenone or boldenone Metabolite(s) when the results of the GC-C-IRMS analysis are inconclusive, a Laboratory may report an ATF when the concentrations are estimated below 5ng/mL (after adjustment for urine specific gravity, if needed). Target Testing of the Athlete by the competent ADO is advised” [Emphasis added].

20. The Athlete submitted to ITA that: - His Sample was reported below 5ng/mL, and when adjusted for specific gravity (1.029, in his case), the estimated concentration of boldenone detected would be even lower. - It is well known that boldenone is widely used in Guatemalan livestock, including poultry, and that he was aware that at least one other anti-doping sample was reported as an ATF at the Competition, which meant that the risk of boldenone meat contamination for athletes competing at the Competition had already been recognized. - His AAF should be treated as an ATF and that he should be provided with the same opportunity as the other Athletes who competed at the Competition and returned an ATF for boldenone (and/or clenbuterol) to provide an explanation.

CAS 2022/ADD/46 5

UWW v. Nathan Dyamin Jackson,

award of 29 November 2022 (operative part of 13 May 2022) - The opening and analysis of his B Sample should be delayed until after the ITA had the opportunity to review his explanations.

21. On 17 December 2021, the ITA replied to the Athlete and confirmed that the opening and analysis of his B Sample would be postponed until after the ITA had an opportunity to assess his explanations.

22. By letter dated 4 January 2022, the Athlete provided an explanation regarding the boldenone and its metabolites detected in his Sample. He stated that: - He never intentionally ingested boldenone, nor had he taken any product that could contain boldenone. Prior to his arrival in Guatemala, he was living in New Jersey and his diet was omnivorous and high in protein. - His diet during his time in Guatemala is most relevant particularly the days leading up to his Sample collection. In that period: o he primarily consumed different meats paired with mashed potatoes and rice for lunch and dinner, and a lot of fruits with each meal, but he does not recall eating any fish; o he ate all but three of his meals at the Hotel Conquistador; and o the three meals he ate outside of the Hotel Conquistador were: (i) a chicken quesadilla that at a restaurant in Antigua, Guatemala, on 26 May 2021; and (ii) a hamburger (Hamburguesa Hyatt Centric Guatemala) on 28 May 2021 at the Zamat restaurant. The entire US men’s freestyle team attended this restaurant, but the Athlete was the only athlete who ordered a hamburger; and (iii) the third meal, a steak, was consumed after he provided his urine Sample on 29 May 2021. - The only reasonable explanation for his positive test was that it was caused by his ingestion of boldenone-contaminated meat in Guatemala in the days leading up to his positive test. The Athlete noted in particular; o the known risk of contaminated meat in Guatemala (including in cattle and

chicken production); o the very low concentration level of boldenone in his Sample was consistent with the consumption of contaminated meat close in time to the Sample collection; o the fact that other athletes competing in the same Competition apparently also tested positive for boldenone which is consistent with the meat contamination scenario; and CAS 2022/ADD/46 6 UWW v. Nathan Dyamin Jackson, award of 29 November 2022 (operative part of 13 May 2022) o other boldenone positive tests in Latin America were determined to have been caused by meat contamination (i.e. International Tennis Federation v Robert Farah (10.02.20) – in Colombia; FISA v Arriaga Gomez (22.06.2015) – in Mexico).

23. On 31 January 2022, the ITA explained to the Athlete’s counsel that, while the concentration of boldenone and its metabolite detected in the Athlete’s Sample could be compatible with the ingestion of contaminated meat, it needed strong evidence of meat contaminated with boldenone in Guatemala. The Athlete was given time to assemble additional evidence.

24. On 29 March 2022, the Athlete provided additional explanations to the ITA, in which he explained the efforts that had been made to determine the sources of the meat that he had eaten on 25 and 28 May 2021. Despite attempts by the Athlete to contact the Ta’Cool Mexican Fusion restaurant in Antigua, where he ate a chicken quesadilla on 25 May 2021, no information could be obtained from the restaurant. Further, based on the information provided by the Hyatt hotel, where the Zamat Restaurant is located, the source of the meat used in the hamburger that the Athlete consumed on 28 May 2022 at the Zamat restaurant could not be identified.

25. On 13 April 2022, the ITA responded to the Athlete and provided its assessment of the case file. The ITA’s position was that the Athlete had not satisfied his burden of establishing the

source of the boldenone detected in his Sample and consequently, the applicable period of Ineligibility under the UWW ADR was four (4) years.

26. The Athlete requested the analysis of his B Sample. He also sought information in relation to other athlete samples at the Competition where boldenone was detected to assist him in satisfying his burden of proof regarding the source of the boldenone detected in his Sample, and that the information was exclusively in the control of the ITA. “ITA identify (i) the number of athlete samples collected at the Competition in which boldenone and/or boldenone metabolites were detected at any level; (ii) the approximate concentration levels of boldenone and/or boldenone metabolites found in each such sample; and (iii) the disposition of each such sample (i.e., was the athlete charged with an anti-doping rule violation or not)”.

27. On 14 April 2022, the ITA responded as follows to the Athlete’s disclosure request: “a. in addition to Mr Jackson’s sample, two other samples collected from wrestlers during the 2021

Pan-American Championship contained boldenone or boldenone metabolite. b. These two other samples were reported by the WADA-accredited laboratory in Montreal as Atypical Findings (“ATF”) in accordance with the with the WADA Technical Document “Detection of Synthetic Forms of Endogenous Anabolic Androgenic Steroids by GC/C/IRMS” TD2019IRMS, in force at the time.

CAS 2022/ADD/46 7

UWW v. Nathan Dyamin Jackson, award of 29 November 2022 (operative part of 13 May 2022) c. The estimated concentrations reported in the two samples were roughly 0.3 ng/mL of boldenone metabolite. d. In accordance with the TD2019IRMS, the presence of boldenone or its main metabolite at a concentration below 5 ng/mL shall be reported as an ATF unless the results of the GC/C/IRMS

analysis conclusively establish the exogenous origin of the banned substance. e. The WADA-accredited laboratory in Montreal has confirmed that the level of boldenone metabolite in the two other samples is too low to perform IRMS analysis. f. After conducting the appropriate investigation as per the UWW ADR and the International Standard for Results Management, the ITA decided not to bring these ATFs forward as apparent Anti-Doping Rule Violations since it could not be scientifically confirmed that the Prohibited Substance detected in the Athletes’ samples was from an exogenous source. It is reiterated that Mr. Jackson’s result is an Adverse Analytical Finding for boldenone (4 ng/ml of boldenone and 1 ng/ml of boldenone metabolite) and the analysis confirmed the exogeneous origin of the Prohibited Substance. This is the key distinction between Mr. Jackson’s case and the two ATFs”.

28. On 24 April 2022, the WADA-accredited laboratory in Montreal, Canada, conducted the B Sample analysis and reported that the Athlete’s B Sample which confirmed the presence of exogeneous boldenone and its metabolite in the A Sample: - Result B Sample: “IRMS results consistent with the exogenous origin of boldenone (-28.9‰) v. pregnanediol (-17.5‰) and 16-enol (-17.8‰). Insufficient volume to estimate levels. Results reported on certificate of analysis no 21L03041IA”. - Specific gravity of the urine sample: 1.028. Analyzed using Laboratory test method(s):

CP: C441-boldenone.

29. On 25 April 2022, the Athlete was notified of the results of his B Sample analysis and the ITA asserted an ADRV against the Athlete pursuant to Articles 2.1 and/or Article 2.2. of the UWW ADR for the presence of boldenone and metabolites in his Sample and to impose the ensuing

Consequences.

30. On 26 April 2022, the Athlete indicated to the ITA that he contested the ADRV charge and the sanction being sought and requested an expedited hearing before the CAS ADD pursuant to Article 8.1.2.2 of the UWW ADR so that a decision could be rendered before 13 May 2022, which is the date of the weigh-in for the USA Wrestling Last Chance World Team Trials Qualifier. The Athlete also requested that the case be heard and decided by a sole arbitrator, maintaining his right of appeal.

31. The matter proceeded to arbitration before the CAS ADD on an expedited basis.

CAS 2022/ADD/46 8

UWW v. Nathan Dyamin Jackson, award of 29 November 2022 (operative part of 13 May 2022)

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

32. The matter was treated as an expedited case with the expedited procedure and Operative Decision to be rendered by 13 May 2022.

33. On 27 April 2022, the Parties jointly nominated Susan Ahern as sole arbitrator.

34. On 3 May 2022, the President of the CAS ADD confirmed the appointment of Susan Ahern, Barrister, Ireland, as the Sole Arbitrator in these proceedings.

35. In accordance with Article A19.5 of the ADD Rules it was agreed that the Operative Decision would be rendered no later than 13 May 2022.

36. On 6 May 2022, the Athlete’s Answer was provided. The CAS Court Office circulated details of the Hearing access to the Parties together with a Hearing Schedule proposed by the Sole

Arbitrator.

37. On 9 May 2022, further documents were filed by UWW.

38. On that same day, 9 May 2022, a video hearing was held. The Sole Arbitrator was assisted by Mr Fabien Cagneux, Managing Counsel of the CAS ADD, and joined by the following:

For the Claimant: • Adam Klevinas, Counsel for the ITA • Christina Pers, Counsel for the ITA

• Professor Martial Saugy (Expert)

For the Athlete:

• Howard Jacobs, Attorney
• Lindsay Brandon, Attorney
• Nathan Dyamin Jackson (Athlete) • Dr. Anneleen Decloedt (Expert) • Reece Humphrey (Witness)

39. At the conclusion of the Hearing it became clear that some clarity was required on the nationalities who returned ATFs for boldenone during the Championships, the Claimant was asked to provide the relevant clarification.

CAS 2022/ADD/46 9

UWW v. Nathan Dyamin Jackson, award of 29 November 2022 (operative part of 13 May 2022)

40. On 10 May 2022, the Claimant responded and confirmed that two USA athletes had reported ATFs for boldenone, providing supporting evidence. The Claimant also indicated that he was awaiting procedural instructions from the Sole Arbitrator in respect of submissions on the documentation it provided. The Sole Arbitrator invited each of the Parties to clarify their submissions on this discrete aspect of the case, to be provided in writing by 11 May 2022, which occurred.

41. On 12 May 2022, the Operative Decision was issued by the Sole Arbitrator.

IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. The Claimant

42. The Claimant’s position can be summarised as follows: - The Prohibited Substance boldenone was found in the Athlete’s A Sample and confirmed in his B Sample as an ADRV for presence contrary to Article 2.1 UWW ADR; - The Sample analysis was properly treated as an AAF and not an ATF by the Laboratory.

WADA-accredited laboratories are presumed to have analysed the Samples in accordance with the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL) (Article 3.2.2 UWW ADR). This presumption has not been rebutted by the Athlete with evidence that a

departure from the ISL occurred to have reasonably caused the AAF; - The reporting of the Sample as an AAF and not an ATF is correct as the Laboratory followed TD2021IRMS (in force at the time of Sample analysis) and the threshold limit was reached (>2.5 ng/mL); - The International Standard for Results Management Guidelines are not mandatory save where they incorporate provisions of the WADC, the ISRM and other International Standards; - The GC/C/IRMS analysis on the Sample conclusively confirmed the boldenone in the Sample was exogenous in origin; - The Athlete is strictly liable for the substances found in his Sample. There is no obligation on UWW to show intention, Fault, negligence or knowing Use on the part of the Athlete in order to establish and ADRV for presence under Article 2.1 UWW ADR. - The UWW has discharged its burden of proof to establish the ARV for the presence of the Prohibited Substance boldenone in the Athlete’s Sample. The Athlete now bears the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities either that the ADRV should not be considered as such, or that the ADRV was unintentional or that the applicable CAS 2022/ADD/46 10 UWW v. Nathan Dyamin Jackson, award of 29 November 2022 (operative part of 13 May 2022) period of Ineligibility can be reduced, suspended or eliminated on the grounds provided for in the UWW ADR.

43. The Claimant’s position in relation to Consequences is as follows: - Pursuant to Article 10.2 UWW ADR the applicable period of Ineligibility for a violation of Article 2.1 and/or Article 2.2, for a non-Specified Substance (including boldenone) is 4 years, unless the Athlete can establish that his ADRV was unintentional. The notion of “intentional” is defined in Article 10.2.3 of the UWW ADR.

• Should the Athlete be successful in establishing that his ADRV was unintentional, the period of ineligibility may be reduced to two (2) years. The Athlete may then attempt to reduce or eliminate the applicable period of Ineligibility on the basis of the grounds provided in Article 10.5 (No Fault or Negligence), Article 10.6 (No Significant Fault or Negligence) and/or 10.7 (Substantial Assistance) of the UWW ADR.

B. The Athlete

44. The Athlete’s position can be summarised as follows: - He accepts the finding of the Prohibited Substance boldenone in his Sample. However, he did not intentionally ingest the boldenone; - The ADRV should have been reported as an ATF not and ADRV; - The approach to the analysis of the discharge of this burden of proof is not to furnish proof of source but to establish such proof on the balance of probabilities (51%); - His ability to establish (a) a lack of intent to commit the ADRV and (b) the propriety of a further reduction in sanction based upon No Significant Fault or Negligence are not contingent upon providing direct evidence of source given inter alia the factual difficulty or impossibility for him to do so (CAS 2011/A/2384 & 2386; CAS 2019/A/6443 & 6593); - He will demonstrate that the source of his positive test was the result of contaminated meat consumed prior to his Sample Collection in Guatemala. The logical explanation for the source of the Prohibited Substance “in light of human experience and common sense” is meat contamination and is supported by the scientific expert evidence. - The delay in the notification of the ADRV meant that the evidence gathering was more difficult and this tardiness was inexplicable (CAS 2019/A/6313). - He submitted that the factual circumstances mitigate against this being a case of intentional doping – including his credibility and that of his coach;

CAS 2022/ADD/46 11

UWW v. Nathan Dyamin Jackson, award of 29 November 2022 (operative part of 13 May 2022) - Based upon Prof. Saugy’s view that the AAF could have been caused by a single dose of boldenone a few days before the Sample collection (38-62 hours before Sample collection as the concentration level was consistent with a tail end excretion of an injected dose), it would mean that, in order to have a result of 2.7 ng/mL (when allowing for SG), the Athlete either had to travel to Guatemala with boldenone or procure it when there or it was caused by contamination. The intentional use proposition is not plausible; - He will demonstrate that boldenone is used in livestock production in Guatemala – scientifically and it is relevant that two other athletes tested positive for boldenone at the Championships (but were treated as ATFs).

C. The Applicable Rules

45. The following provisions from the UWW ADR will be referenced in this Award: “2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample 2.1.1 It is the Athletes’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1. 2 2.1.2 Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is established by any of the following: presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the Athlete’s A Sample where the Athlete waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analyzed; or, where the Athlete’s

B Sample is analyzed and the analysis of the Athlete’s B Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the Athlete’s A Sample; …”. (…) ARTICLE 9 AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS An anti-doping rule violation in Individual Sports 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. (…) 10.1 Disqualification of Results in the Event during which an Anti-Doping Rule Violation Occurs 10.1.1 An anti-doping rule violation occurring during or in connection with an Event may, upon the decision of the ruling body of the Event, lead to Disqualification of all of the Athlete's individual results obtained CAS 2022/ADD/46 12 UWW v. Nathan Dyamin Jackson, award of 29 November 2022 (operative part of 13 May 2022) in that Event with all Consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes, except as provided in Article 10.1.2. Factors to be included in considering whether to Disqualify other results in an Event might include, for example, the seriousness of the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation and whether the Athlete tested negative in the other Competitions. 10.1.2 If the Athlete establishes that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence for the violation, the Athlete's individual results in the other Competitions shall not be Disqualified, unless the Athlete's results in Competitions other than the Competition in which the anti-doping rule violation occurred were likely to have been affected by the Athlete's anti-doping rule violation. 10.2 Ineligibility for Presence, Use or Attempted Use, or Possession of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method The period of Ineligibility for a violation of Article 2.1, 2.2 or 2.6 shall be as follows, subject to potential

elimination, reduction or suspension pursuant to Article 10.5, 10.6 or 10.7: 10.2.1 The period of Ineligibility, subject to Article 10.2.4, shall be four (4) years where: 10.2.1.1 The anti-doping rule violation does not involve a Specified Substance or a Specified Method, unless the Athlete or other Person can establish that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional. 10.2.3 As used in Article 10.2, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes or other Persons who engage in conduct which they knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk… [Comment to Article 10.2.1.1: While it is theoretically possible for an Athlete or other Person to establish that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional without showing how the P