Lec 3 - Rodchenkov, Russell, C.S.

Who is Girgory Rodchenkov?

Former head of Russia’s national anti doping laboratory

Involvement with state-run doping in Russia

• 2016 interview exposing doping program in Russia

• Sochi Olympics

• Concealed positive test results

Currently in witness protection

2018 Winter Olympics-’Olympic Athletes from Russia’

Names of athletes under program-defamation lawsuit filed against Rodchenkov

What is Rodchenkov Anti-doping act?

To impose criminal sanctions on certain persons (not athletes) involved in international doping fraud conspiracies,

• to provide restitution for victims of such conspiracies, and

• to require sharing of information with the United States Anti-Doping Agency to assist its fight against doping, and for other purposes.

This is under American legislation 

• criminally charged if you breach act 

Where does the act apply?

In major international sport competition

The criteria for a competition is:

• one or more US athlete and three or more other athletes 

• governed by anti-doping rules 

• other…

What is main point of this act?

In general: illegal for anyone except athlete to knowingly plan a scheme to influence international sports competition by using banned substances/methods

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: this law applies all over the world not just US

• US can take action if this happens anywhere else 

What is the criminal penalty in this act?

Whoever violates section 3 shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not more than 10 years (this is the limit), fined $250,000 if the person is an individual or $1,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both (like a corporation)

What is forfeiture in this act?

Any property real or personal, tangible or intangible, may be seized and criminally forfeited to the United States if that property-

(A) is used or intended to be used, in any manner, to commit or facilitate a violation of section 3; or

• used for crime 

(B) constitutes or is traceable to the proceeds taken, obtained, or retained in connection with or as a result of a violation of section 3

• property connected to money and benefits gained from crime

Who was the first charged under this act? What happened?

January 2022 initially discovered…, charged in 2023 and pleaded guilty

• Alleged distribution of performance-enhancing drugs to athletes for the purpose of cheating at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games

• Erica Lira, Texas based therapist obtained performance enhancing drugs and distributed them to athletes in advance of, and for the purpose of cheating at Tokyo 2020

• Obtained misbranded versions of prescription drugs and distributed to athletes

• Provided athletes with Human Growth Hormone and Erythropoietin (EPO)

What was the result of this charge?

2024: sentenced to prison for 3 months 

• forfeited $16 410

Canadian Centre for Ethics in sport v. Russell, 2007. Applicants and respondents? 

Applicants

• Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport

• Swimming Natation Canada

• Coaches of Canada

Respondent: Cecil Thomas George Russell

Where did this case happen?

ON SC - supreme court of Ontario

Decision release 2007

Who is Cecil Russell? What happened to him?

Swimming coach who committed a doping-related infraction 

• possession of anabolic steroids in 1995 / conspiracy to import them in 1996

  • Sophisticated conspiracy-importing steroids from different counties through his place of business and home-drugs then sent out to various areas

• arbitrator imposed a lifetime band 

What is the case of CCES v. Russell?

Russell applied for reinstatement in February 2000-denied 

Russell applied for reinstatement in 2005-successful

September 2005- Arbitrator Mew ordered that Russell be reinstated as a swimming coach in Canada. (SDRCC Decision)

Applicants of this case apply to set aside decision of Adjudicator Mew, reinstating the Respondent as a national level swimming coach on the basis of fraud

• some kind of fraud occurred in process

What did the CCES learn after the arbitration hearing?

Articles about him helping burn a body were surfing up

He also had pleaded and been found guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute MDMA (ecstasy) in Arizona and was sentenced to a term of four years imprisonment in March of 2004

• he didn’t disclose this at his reinstatement meeting

What issues arises in this case? - idk

Him not disclosing Arizona issue could be constituted as fraud?

The court is being asked if it should delete certain parts of the statements because they involve unproven claims (false evidence) and news reports about a serious crime, which may not be relevant or reliable.

What is the CCES?

Canadian Center for ethics and sport

• non-profit corporation

What is Canadian policy on penalties for doping in sport?

1993 Policy

• Defines doping infractions and doping-related infractions for both athletes and coaches

Set out penalties

• Lifetime ineligibility for direct federal sport funding

• Sport ineligibility for minimum of four years

“1993 Policy permitted a person who committed an infraction to apply for a Category II reinstatement under limited and exceptional circumstances”

How is the policy related to this Russell case?

Coach applied for reinstatement and submits to CCDS for arbitration

What is the standard operating procedure (S.O.P.) factors that the arbitrator needs to consider whether exceptional circumstances justify the reinstatement? - short answer ****

 a) age;

b) remorse;

c) circumstances of the offence; 

d) experience; 

e) rehabilitation; 

f) prior and post offence conduct; 

g) contribution to sport; 

h) Cooperation with investigation; 

i) length of suspension; and 

j) others factors.

What were the incorrect findings by arbitrator mew?

Decision-found Russell accused of being involved but was absolved of charges

• Incorrect-Russell convicted in Arizona

News articles about Convictions surface:

• CCES sought leave to reopen the hearing based on new information

• Arbitrator Mew refused-functus officio

  • essentially saying that he made his decision and doesn’t have authority to change it 

What can be done for this case - analysis?

Court may set aside an award (decision) where award obtained by fraud

• civil standard: balance of probabilities (looking at which side more right)

civil: not charged with murder but questioning ability to coach due to past actions 

What was Russell’s position? Court Response?

He argued that fraud means someone has to lie (make a false statement), and he said not revealing something important (like his Arizona conviction) shouldn’t count as fraud.

Court

• disagreed and court finds that Russell’s failure to disclose Arizona conviction was calculated to deceive

• A reasonably informed person would conclude that Russell’s actions in not disclosing his conviction in the circumstances were calculated to deceive.

What does the court conclude?

Court finds the failure to disclose is

• Deliberate

• Improper

• CCES, Coaches, and Swimming Canada asked the court to overturn Arbitrator Mew’s decision because they believed fraud was involved.

• The court agreed with them and decided to cancel Mew's decision.

• The case is now sent back to Arbitrator Mew to reconsider the decision, but this time with the new evidence that came up.

Who are Cecil Russell’s children and why is this important?

Sinead and Colin Russell

• both went to London olympics

• swim ontario bans club as they allowed cecil to coach 

What was 2019 Dolphins club situation?

Tried coaching here even though he wasn’t allowed

• parents didn’t care and wanted him to coach their kids

What is Richard Laplante on behalf of C.S. v. B.C special olympics society, 2004 - who is C.S?

C.S

• Special Olympics British Columbia participant for 6 years

• Mental disability-Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS)

• 1993-criminally charged-unfit to stand trial because of his mental disability

• 2001-B.C. Review Board determined C.S. fit to stand trial

• Plead guilty and placed on probation for two years

Case location, court?

BC

British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

What is the issue of this case?

September 11, 2001

• BCSO suspended him from all involvement with BCSO (criminal matter surfaced)

• Told that if he wished to reapply he would have to provide the Respondent with details about his conviction, then Exec committee would make a decision

• In May 2003, after completing his two year probationary term, CS attempted to register

• Informed suspension was still in effect

Allegation that respondent discriminated against C.S. regarding a service customarily available to the public and membership in a union or association because of the mental disability and criminal conviction of C.S.

• CS saying he is being discriminated against for not being allowed back

Who is the BC special olympics (know general)? What was their position?

Non-profit organization with a primary purpose of promoting the interests and welfare of the individuals with mental disabilities, it is exempted by s. 4

Rules and policies exist to protect the interests and welfare of individuals with mental disabilities who are in, or may join, the BCSO

BCSO Position

• Complainant has not provided necessary details of his criminal conviction- Respondent cannot assess his application for reinstatement

What was the complainant’s position?

C.S. argues that his criminal conviction is linked to a mental disability, and he believes that discriminating against him because of this is unfair because the two are connected.

What was the result of this case? - i don’t understand 

Tribunal doesn’t have jurisdiction to look into this case about C.S. being treated unfairly because of his criminal conviction

• tribunal agreed that if the issue is about C.S.’s criminal conviction, it doesn’t break any laws related to mental disabilities.

• tribunal also discussed what types of discrimination are protected by law, but it decided that discrimination based on a criminal record is not one of them in this case. (Discussion on protected grounds

In short: The tribunal said that C.S. cannot claim discrimination because of his criminal record.