TAS - CAS Bulletin 2025-3&4

Bulletin TAS CAS Bulletin Boletín del TAS 2025/3 & 40

TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT/COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT/TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DEL DEPORTE ___________________________________________________________________________

Bulletin TAS CAS Bulletin Boletín del TAS 2025/3 & 4

Lausanne 2025Table des matières/Table of Contents/Indice de Contenidos

Editorial 4

Jurisprudence notable /Cases of interest /Casos de interés 6

Arbitration CAS 2020/A/7509 Evgeny Ustyugov v. International Biathlon Union (IBU) 18 November 2024 7

Arbitrage TAS 2021/A/8388 Rosnick Grant c. FIFA 4 décembre 2024 (dispositif du 30 mars 2023) 64

Arbitration CAS 2022/O/8722 Simidele Adeagbo v. International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation (IBSF) & International Olympic Committee (IOC) 31 March 2025 119

Arbitration CAS 2023/A/9923 Mezőkövesd Zsóry FC v. Matija Katanec & FIFA 17 December 2024 189

Arbitrations CAS 2023/A/10114 & 10117-10119 & 10121-10122 Tel Aviv Holdings Ltd. v. FIFA 20 May 2025 214

Arbitration CAS 2023/A/10204 Márkó Futács v. Yeni Mersin Idmanyurdu Futbol A.S. & FIFA

Tel Aviv Holdings Ltd. v. FIFA 20 May 2025 214

Arbitration CAS 2023/A/10204 Márkó Futács v. Yeni Mersin Idmanyurdu Futbol A.S. & FIFA 24 February 2024 272

Arbitration CAS 2023/A/10255 Yeni Mersin Idman Yurdu A.S. v. Danilo Petrolli Bueno & FIFA 28 May 2025 299

Procedimiento Arbitral TAS 2024/A/10321 El Quilmes Atlético Club v. Club Deportes Unión La Calera & FIFA 25 de abril de 2025 (parte dispositiva de fecha 19 de agosto de 2024) 316

Arbitration CAS 2024/A/10331 Ismaily Sporting Club v. Firas Chaouat & FIFA 27 March 2025 343

Arbitration CAS 2024/A/10384 Luis Rubiales v. FIFA 21 February 2025 367

Arbitration CAS 2024/A/10551 Espérance Sportive Troyes Aube Champagne (ESTAC) v. Torino Football Club S.P.A. & FIFA 17 April 2025 423Arbitration CAS 2024/A/10573 Yangzi Liu v. International Table Tennis Federation (ITTF) 26 June 2025 446

Arbitration CAS 2024/A/10655 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Japan Anti-Doping Agency & Masaki Toyoda 28 May 2025 471

Arbitration CAS 2024/A/10660 Ronan Labar & Lucas Corvée v. Badminton World Federation (BWF) & Fédération Française de Badminton (FFBaD) 7 May 2025 526

Arbitration CAS 2024/A/10718 KAA Gent v. FIFA

Ronan Labar & Lucas Corvée v. Badminton World Federation (BWF) & Fédération Française de Badminton (FFBaD) 7 May 2025 526

Arbitration CAS 2024/A/10718 KAA Gent v. FIFA 17 February 2025 552

Arbitration CAS 2024/A/10722

A. v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) & B. 22 April 2025 (operative part of 30 July 2024) 568

Arbitration CAS 2024/A/10740 Emil Bengtson et al. v. Swedish Olympic Committee (SOC) 26 February 2025 (operative part of 26 July 2024) 600

Arbitration CAS 2024/A/10748 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Fédération Internationale d’Escrime (FIE) & Ysaora Thibus 7 July 2025 632

Arbitration CAS 2024/A/10760 Nayoka Clunis v. World Athletics (WA) & International Olympic Committee (IOC) 26 February 2025 665

Arbitration CAS 2024/A/10841 Bogdan Ilie Vătăjelu v. Abha FC 27 June 2025 692

Arbitration CAS 2024/A/10918 Jonathan Dominic Finbar Beckett v. FIFA 15 May 2025 714

Arbitration CAS 2024/A/10946 DVSC Futball Szervezo ZRT v. Juan Carillo Milan 12 June 2025 739

Arbitration CAS 2024/A/11043 Vladan Spaic & Cercle des Nageurs de Marseille v. European Aquatics 5 May 2025 771Arbitrage TAS 2024/A/11050 Lyon La Duchère c. FIFA 6 mai 2025 794

Vladan Spaic & Cercle des Nageurs de Marseille v. European Aquatics 5 May 2025 771Arbitrage TAS 2024/A/11050 Lyon La Duchère c. FIFA 6 mai 2025 794

Arbitration CAS 2025/A/11145 Evi Strasser & Tanya Strasser v. Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) 28 July 2025 810

Sélection de publications récentes relatives au TAS / Selection of recent publications relating to the CAS / Selección de publicaciones recientes relacionadas con el CAS 8434

Editorial

At the end of September this year, Mr John Coates (Australia), 75, has decided to step down as President of the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) and of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). He has been a member of ICAS since its creation in 1994, he became its third President in 2010 and was re -elected unopposed in 2015, 2019 and 2023.

Under his leadership, ICAS and CAS have experienced substantial growth. Since 2010, the number of CAS procedures registered annually has tripled (from 304 in 2010 to 917 in 2024), and the staff of the CAS Court Office has increased from 18 to 6 0 employees. The ICAS budget has also expanded significantly, rising from CHF 4 million in 2010 to CHF 24 million in 2024.

In his resignation letter, Mr Coates wrote: “Thanks to the contributions and support of our ICAS colleagues and CAS staff, the quality of our arbitrators and the stakeholders’ respect for our independence, the institution I am leaving has never been stronger”.

Pursuant to Article S6 of the ICAS Statutes, the senior Vice -President, Mr Michael

our ICAS colleagues and CAS staff, the quality of our arbitrators and the stakeholders’ respect for our independence, the institution I am leaving has never been stronger”.

Pursuant to Article S6 of the ICAS Statutes, the senior Vice -President, Mr Michael Lenard, will assume the functions and responsibilities of the President until an election is held. The next presidential election is scheduled for May 2027, unless ICAS decides to convene one earlier. Mr Lenard stated: “It is a great honour for me to take over the ICAS Presidency. I look forward to ensuring, with the support of my colleagues, that the success story of ICAS and CAS continues. On behalf of ICAS and CAS, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to John Coates for his outstanding leadership during his 15 years of presidency.”.

From a digital standpoint, several important developments have taken place recently. On 17 December 2025, CAS launched a new website featuring an updated jurisprudence database. A new e -filing system will be operational in the course of the first half of 2026 to facilitate the notification of documents in CAS procedures . This evolution will represent a further step towards increased digitalization of CAS arbitration.

As planned, CAS has organized quarterly workshops and webinars for its arbitrators and mediators. T hese workshops are aimed at informing the CAS members about the recent CAS case law, procedural issues and the CAS practice.

The year 2025 was marked by two European proceedings concerning CAS cases:

1. Semenya/Switzerland, at the Grand Chamber of the European Court of

Human Rights (ECHR)

1. Seraing/FIFA, at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)

Although the CAS awards in both matters have remained undisturbed after these

Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)

1. Seraing/FIFA, at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)

Although the CAS awards in both matters have remained undisturbed after these European procedures, the main test was the scope of the review process of awards following CAS arbitrations. In both matters, the European courts have confirmed the legal standards which existed prior to 2025. In short, such review process is limited to public policy and does not include a full review of the law, like in a classic appeal. Taking the example of the case RFC Seraing/FIFA, the CJEU determined that the review of CAS a wards should be limited to EU public policy only. The Seraing decision follows the previous European jurisprudence and is in line with the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention).

Both European courts recognized that sports arbitration is a legitimate mechanism ensuring a uniform treatment of sporting disputes and a consistent application of sporting rules. This is a positive signal,5

encouraging CAS to continue improving the services of its arbitration procedures, in accordance with the requirements of independence and neutrality, and in compliance with due process rights.

For the 2026 Olympic Winter Games to be held in Milan-Cortina from 6 to 22 February 2026, CAS will open two temporary offices in Milan. The first will host the CAS Ad Hoc Division, which has operated at every edition of the Summer and Winter Olympic Games since 1996 and at other major international events. The CAS Ad hoc Division guarantees free access to arbitration services conducted within a timeframe consistent with the competition schedule as decisions c ould be rendered within 24 hours in urgent matters.

The second temporary office will be a section of the CAS Anti -Doping Division (CAS

events. The CAS Ad hoc Division guarantees free access to arbitration services conducted within a timeframe consistent with the competition schedule as decisions c ould be rendered within 24 hours in urgent matters.

The second temporary office will be a section of the CAS Anti -Doping Division (CAS ADD), responsible for adjudicating dopingrelated cases arising during the Games as a first-instance authority. Inaugurated at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games, this structure handles cases referred to by the International Testing Agency (ITA) under the IOC AntiDoping Rules. The CAS ADD became permanent, also outside the Olympic Games, in 2019.

This issue of the Bulletin combines the September and December editions and therefore includes a substantial number of significant cases —those raising novel legal issues, reaffirming key principles, or attracting notable public interest. Beginning this year, selected decisions are published in their original form, accompanied by concise summaries highlighting the core legal points.

As football continues to represent most CAS proceedings, this issue features 1 4 footballrelated cases out of the 2 5 notable cases selected.

I wish you a pleasant reading of this new edition of the CAS Bulletin and a Happy New Year 2026.

Matthieu Reeb CAS Director General6

___________________________________________________________________________ Jurisprudence notable Cases of interest Casos de interés

Nous attirons votre attention sur le fait que la jurisprudence qui suit a été sélectionnée et résumée par le Greffe du TAS afin de mettre l’accent sur des questions juridiques récentes qui contribuent au développement de la jurisprudence du TAS. We draw your attention to the fact that the following case law has been selected and summarised by the CAS Court Office in order to highlight recent legal issues which have arisen, and which contribute to the development of CAS

du TAS. We draw your attention to the fact that the following case law has been selected and summarised by the CAS Court Office in order to highlight recent legal issues which have arisen, and which contribute to the development of CAS jurisprudence. Llamamos su atención sobre el hecho de que la siguiente jurisprudencia ha sido seleccionada y resumida por la Secretaría del TAS con el fin de poner de relieve las recientes cuestiones jurídicas que han surgido y que contribuyen al desarrollo de la jurisprudencia del TAS.7

___________________________________ Arbitration CAS 2020/A/7509 Evgeny Ustyugov v. International Biathlon Union (IBU) 18 November 2024 ___________________________________

Biathlon; Doping (Athlete’s Biological Passport); Production of new evidence ; Private samples; Official samples; Illegally obtained evidence ; Doctrine of estoppel ; Genetic condition; Sanctions

Panel Prof. Massimo Coccia (Italy), President Mr Pierre Muller (Switzerland) Mr Romano Subiotto KC (United Kingdom)

1. Pursuant to Article R56(1) of the CAS Code, the parties shall not be authorised to produce new exhibits after the exchange of the written submissions, save in exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances are met when the new evidence becomes available after the filing of the appeal brief or answer. Some flexibility also exists in practice regarding documents that are publicly available online.

2. Only samples collected for antidoping purposes by the competent bodies and using relevant protocols can be included in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP). Private samples can be admitted to the case file but constitute unreliable evidence. They cann ot be used to expand, reformulate or recalculate an athlete’s longitudinal profile.

3. Minor procedural departures surrounding the collection and

Biological Passport (ABP). Private samples can be admitted to the case file but constitute unreliable evidence. They cann ot be used to expand, reformulate or recalculate an athlete’s longitudinal profile.

3. Minor procedural departures surrounding the collection and transport of an athlete’s official samples do not justify their invalidation or call into question their reliability under applicable guidelines and standards.

4. The athlete’s consent to undergo further testing in order to investigate his genetic defence precludes subsequent complaints related to data protection. In any event, illegally obtained evidence may be admissible if there is an overriding public or private interest at stake.

5. The consideration of successive reports by a group of experts whose opinion has evolved due to ongoing investigations and evidence does not violate the doctrine of estoppel , and shows good faith in the search for the truth.

6. An antidoping rule violation is established when longitudinal abnormalities in hemoglobin levels cannot be scientifically explained by an alleged genetic condition or infection. This is particularly true when the peaks in question coincide with major competitions and the spectre of state sponsored doping casts a shadow over the athlete.

7. The sanctions imposed do not have to be re viewed in depth on appeal if they appear to be correct and are not challenged.

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This appeal is brought by the biathlon athlete Mr Evgeny Ustyugov against the International Biathlon Union to challenge a decision rendered on 27

October 2020 by a Sole Arbitrator of the CAS Anti -Doping Division (“ADD”), who found that Mr Evgeny Ustyugov8

had committed an Anti -Doping Rule Violation (“ADRV”) and sanctioned him with a 4 -year period of ineligibility and a disqualification of all competitive

CAS Anti -Doping Division (“ADD”), who found that Mr Evgeny Ustyugov8

had committed an Anti -Doping Rule Violation (“ADRV”) and sanctioned him with a 4 -year period of ineligibility and a disqualification of all competitive results obtained from 24 January 2010 to the end of the 2013-2014 season with all resulting consequences.

2. In his appeal, Mr Evgeny Ustyugov raised some preliminary objections, arguing in short that (i) the ADD did not have first instance jurisdiction and that, as a consequence, (ii) the CAS did not have jurisdiction on appeal, and that (iii) the ADD was irregu larly constituted.

This Panel, in its Award on Jurisdiction and Other Preliminary Issues dated 8 April 2022 (the “Preliminary Award”), dismissed those objections, by deciding that the ADD had first instance jurisdiction and was regularly constituted and th at the CAS does have appellate jurisdiction over the merits of this case. The Preliminary Award was upheld by the Swiss Federal Tribunal in its judgment 4A_232/2022 of 22 December 2022. Therefore, the present final Award only addresses the merits of this c ase and does not deal with the preliminary issues adjudicated by the Preliminary Award, which are by now res judicata.

II. THE PARTIES

3. Mr Evgeny Ustyugov (the “Appellant”, the “Athlete” or “Mr Ustyugov”), born on 4 June 1985, is a former international level athlete of Russian nationality who had a successful career in the sport of biathlon, winning, most notably, a gold and bronze medal in the 2010

Vancouver Winter Olympics, as well as a gold medal in the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics.

4. The International Biathlon Union (the

had a successful career in the sport of biathlon, winning, most notably, a gold and bronze medal in the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics, as well as a gold medal in the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics.

4. The International Biathlon Union (the “IBU” or the “Respondent”), headquartered in Anif, Austria, is the international sporting federation and the world governing body for the sport of biathlon.

5. The Appellant and the Respondent are collectively referred to as the “Parties.”

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

6. Below is a summary of the main relevant facts, as submitted by the Parties in their written pleadings and adduced at the hearing. Additional facts may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion that follows. Although the Panel has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the Parties in the present proceedings, it refers in this final Award only to the submissions and evidence it considers necessary to explain its reasoning.

A. Mr Ustyugov’s Testing History and

ABP

7. The Athlete began competing in international biathlon events in 2005. He competed for several years in IBU international events, obtaining several Olympic and World Championship medals as well as many World Cup podiums, until he retired from international biathlon competitions in

2014.

8. During his career, the Athlete underwent numerous doping tests in accordance with the IBU’s testing program.

9. Blood samples periodically collected from the Athlete were compiled to create his hematological Athlete Biological Passport (“ABP”), a9

document which records and tracks the values of certain hematological parameters over time to monitor red blood cell production and detect blood manipulation. The biomarkers recorded in the ABP include hemoglobin

create his hematological Athlete Biological Passport (“ABP”), a9

document which records and tracks the values of certain hematological parameters over time to monitor red blood cell production and detect blood manipulation. The biomarkers recorded in the ABP include hemoglobin concentration (“HGB”), the percentage of re ticulocytes – i.e., young red blood cells – calculated out of the total red blood cells (“RET%”), and the ratio of the HGB and the RET%, as reflected by an “OFF-Score”.

10. Mr Ustyugov’s ABP consists of seventeen blood samples collected on behalf of the IBU from 24 January 2010 until 14 February 2014. The detected HGB, RET% and OFF-score values are shown in the table below (note that Samples 4 and 13 were held invalid and,

accordingly, not included in the ABP):

No. Date of Sample HGB (g/dL) RET % OFFscore 1. 24.01.2010 15.4 1.71 75.54 2. 28.01.2010 17.6 1.53 101.80 3. 26.10.2010 17.0 2.81 69.40 4. 21.02.2012 17.7 1.05 115.52 5. 19.09.2012 17.1 1.47 98.30 6. 25.10.2012 16.3 1.77 83.20 7. 6.11.2012 17.5 2.16 86.80 8. 27.12.2012 16.8 2.08 81.00 9. 22 .01.2013 17.8 2.00 93.15

7. 6.11.2012 17.5 2.16 86.80 8. 27.12.2012 16.8 2.08 81.00 9. 22 .01.2013 17.8 2.00 93.15 10. 30.01.2013 18.5 1.72 106.31 11. 31.03.2013 17.2 1.83 90.80 12. 29.052013 16.8 1.94 84.40 13. 17.07.2013 17.7 1.98 92.60 14. 26.07.2013 18.6 1.57 110.82 15. 27.09.2013 17.1 2.18 82.40 16. 29.12.2013 16.2 2.49 67.32 17. 10.01.2014 17.2 1.87 89.95 18. 27.01.2014 17.0 1.61 93.87 19. 14.01.2014 19.0 2.10 103.10

11. Mr Ustyugov’s ABP sample results were also reproduced in the following charts, which compare the detected HGB, RET% and OFF -score values to his individual limits as calculated by the Adaptive Model (a mathematical model that was designed to identify unusua l results from athletes based on a longitudinal review of their blood values):10

12. Mr Ustyugov’s ABP sample results were also reproduced in the following charts, which compare the detected HGB, RET% and OFF -score values to his individual limits as calculated by the Adaptive Model (a mathematical model

values):10

12. Mr Ustyugov’s ABP sample results were also reproduced in the following charts, which compare the detected HGB, RET% and OFF -score values to his individual limits as calculated by the Adaptive Model (a mathematical model that was designed to identify unusua l results from athletes based on a longitudinal review of their blood

values):

13. Mr Ustyugov’s ABP sample results were also reproduced in the following charts, which compare the detected HGB, RET% and OFF -score values to his individual limits as calculated by the Adaptive Model (a mathematical model that was designed to identify unusua l results from athletes based on a longitudinal review of their blood

values):

14. On 27 September 2016, the Nordic Athlete Passport Management Unit (“NAPMU”) referred the Athlete’s ABP for expert review. A panel consisting of

Dr. Paulo Paixão, Prof. Giuseppe D’Onofrio and Prof. Michel Audran (hereinafter “ABP Panel”) independently reviewed th e Athlete’s anonymized ABP.

15. During the IBU investigation relating to the Athlete, new ABP samples were collected and added to the Athlete’s ABP on 25 October 2017 and 6 December 2017 (the “2017 Samples” infra at paras. 21 to 24).

B. The First ABP Panel Opinion

16. On 21 March 2017, the ABP Panel issued the Joint Expert Opinion (the “First ABP Panel Opinion”), finding as follows: “In the automated analysis by the adaptive model, which determines whether fluctuations in the biomarkers of the Athlete Biological Passport are within the expected individual reference ranges for an athlete or not, the probability of abnormality, accordin g to ABP

follows: “In the automated analysis by the adaptive model, which determines whether fluctuations in the biomarkers of the Athlete Biological Passport are within the expected individual reference ranges for an athlete or not, the probability of abnormality, accordin g to ABP software at the 99% specificity level, is > 99.9% for hemoglobin (HB), >99% for the Off-score and >99.5% for reticulocyte percentage (ret%). The athlete has several flagged samples: samples 2, 10, 14 and 19 for hemoglobin; sample 3 for ret%. This profile displays important variability, with difficult physiological explanations In particular, the sequence between samples 16 and 19 is very suspicious: sample 19, collected incompetition, has an increase to the highest hemoglobin value (19g/dL) of the profile in less than 3 weeks (2g/dL), with a slight increase in ret%, suggesting that the bodys blood cell mass has been increased behind any physiological explanation. This sequence started with sample 16, which shows the lowest hemoglobin and the highest ret% results of the last three years; this sample was collected 1 week before a period of competitions, and hemoglobin increased thereafter to 17.2g/dL (sample 17) when the competition restarted, keeping this result (17g/dL) during his stay at the biathlon centrum (1700m), to peak on sample 19 (19g/dL). In the Doping control form of sample11

19, the athlete declares that he stayed at altitude (1700m) for 1 month. It is well known that altitude can cause mild changes to the OFF score within a defined timeframe (1,2). Nevertheless, based on the many studies in which effects of altitude on the blood picture have been assessed, training at less than 2000m has very little hematological effect and cannot explain the

altitude can cause mild changes to the OFF score within a defined timeframe (1,2). Nevertheless, based on the many studies in which effects of altitude on the blood picture have been assessed, training at less than 2000m has very little hematological effect and cannot explain the hematological changes observed in this sample. In addition, other hematological abnormalities are present in this passport, which are not compatible with normal physiology, altitude nor intense exercise, such as the very fast increase of hemoglobin from sample 1 to sample 2, the frequent combination of high hemoglobin with high or very high reticulocytes (such as in samples 3, 7, 9, 10), the extremely high hemoglobin value observed is [sic] samples 10, 14 and 19 […]. In the medical document, on the other hand, results of the complete blood count (in translation), show that the athlete had a very high value of HB (18.9 g/dl) in September

2012. The document also includes blood counts of the athlete’s father (HB 17.0 g/dl ) and mother (HB 15.3 g/dl), which are in mediumhigh normal range for the general population.

This finding raises the possible presence of a very rare congenital form of erythrocytosis in the athlete [5]. The possibility of a rare congenital form of eryth rocytosis should be excluded by accurate, in -depth clinical diagnosis, including genetic and molecular studies. […] Based on these facts and the information available to date, it is our unanimous opinion that, in the absence of an appropriate explanation, the likelihood of the abnormalities described above being due to blood manipulation is high. On the contrary, the li kelihood of environmental factors causing the described pattern is very low”.

17. On 5 May 2017, the IBU sent the Athlete a letter notifying him of an investigation into a potential anti-doping rule violation

is high. On the contrary, the li kelihood of environmental factors causing the described pattern is very low”.

17. On 5 May 2017, the IBU sent the Athlete a letter notifying him of an investigation into a potential anti-doping rule violation

(an “ADRV”) pursuant to Article 2.2 of the IBU Anti -Doping Rules (“IBU ADR”) following an Adverse Passport Finding issued by the NAPMU. The letter invited the Athlete to provide a written explanation for his ABP anomalies.

18. On 19 May 2017, the Athlete denied the ADRV charges. The Athlete wrote: “I have elevated red blood cell count and this is a biological feature of my body only. But the reasons for these remains obscure for me. To prove my innocence, I am preparing to submit a medical examination, in particular the in-depth clinical diagnosis in specialized center regarding existence of the mutations associated with the elevated development of erythrocytes” . The Athlete followed this up with a letter of 12 July 2017, in whic h he stated that his doctors planned to conduct tests (i) for an “abnormality in the EPO -signalling pathway genes and in parallel” , (ii) to “examine the probability of acquired erythrocytosis”, and (iii) to check for “mutations in the genes associated with the oxygen-sensing pathway”.

19. On 20 July 2017, the Athlete provided a letter from geneticist Dr. E.G. Okuneva proposing to conduct Whole -Exome Sequencing (“WES”) on the Athlete to identify any relevant genetic mutations, based on private testing which had allegedly revealed elevated HGB levels in the Athlete’s mother.

C. The Second ABP Panel Opinion

20. On 7 September 2017, the ABP Panel

identify any relevant genetic mutations, based on private testing which had allegedly revealed elevated HGB levels in the Athlete’s mother.

C. The Second ABP Panel Opinion

20. On 7 September 2017, the ABP Panel issued a further joint expert opinion (the

“Second ABP Panel Opinion”), finding as follows: “[I]n his letter dated 19.5.2017, the Athlete states that elevated red blood cell count is a12

biological feature of his body and affirms his availability to undergo in -depth clinical studies in a specialized center regarding the existence of the mutations associated with erythrocytosis. Given such Athlete’s availability, it is our opinion that it would be very useful to obtain recent information on the current Athlete’s blood values. Such updated knowledge should be obtained by a few unannounced tests, collected according to the formal AB P protocol, repeated several times over a period of at least six months […]. [I]n our opinion WES, as mentioned in Dr Ogareva’s document translation, is not a currently recognized method for the definition of congenital erythrocytosis and has never been applied to the molecular investigation of candidate subjects with this genetic condition. […] In conclusion, it is our opinion that WES is not a currently recognized method for the identification of genetic variants associated with congenital erythrocytosis. Specific genetic analysis, on the other hand, should be performed in specifically expert la boratories, whose availability has to be verified. It is also our opinion that any further testing of the Athlete, which should also preliminary include new recent blood cell counts, should be carried out in strict adherence to the pre -analytical and analy tical requirements prescribed by the Athlete Biological Passport Operating Guidelines, version 6.0 published in January 2017, including TD2017BAR and ISTI annexes K

blood cell counts, should be carried out in strict adherence to the pre -analytical and analy tical requirements prescribed by the Athlete Biological Passport Operating Guidelines, version 6.0 published in January 2017, including TD2017BAR and ISTI annexes K and L,, which regulate collection by anti-doping collection authorities, storage and transport with chain of custody and analysis of anonymous samples”.

21. On 2 October 2017, the IBU sent a letter requesting the Athlete’s consent to conduct no -notice testing within a sixmonth period and for the Athlete to provide his whereabouts information to facilitate the collection of samples without prior notice. The request for consent read inter alia as follows: “[T]he IBU is willing in principle to give you the opportunity to have further testing conducted in connection with your alleged congenital condition. I must stress that the IBU is under no obligation to afford you this opportunity in the circumstances of this case. Moreover the IBU is only willing to do so if you accept that the further testing shall be coordinated by the IBU and on the condition that you cooperate fully with the process. As a first step in that process, the IBU requires that you provide y our written consent […] to the full Testing authority of the IBU for an initial period of six months from the date of your consent (the “Relevant Period”) for the purposes of an analysis, at one of the laboratories identified by the Expert Panel, for a pot ential genetic variation compatible with erythrocytosis and any other analysis that