Appeal Decisions
Appeals are heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is the highest independent authority in international sport that resolves disputes through arbitration.
CAS is an independent body governed by the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS).
The main task of ICAS is to safeguard the independence of CAS and the rights of the parties.
CAS produces written awards for all its decisions and links to these awards can be found in the list below.
Last updated on 14 January 2020
- Bold, Italic Text identifies entries that have been added or updated on the date above.
- Click on the Light Blue Text under the "Outcome" column to read the decisions.
| Date | Appellant | Respondent | NAT | ADRV | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/12/2019 | AIU (on behalf of IAAF) | QAF & Mousaab Balla | QAT | The AIU challenged the QAF decision of No Violation for Possession of a Prohibited Substance (Rule 32.2(f)) | Appeal upheld – 4 years ineligibility from 6 June 2019 (with credit for periods of Provisional Suspension from 11 October 2016 to 31 August 2018 and from 31 October 2018 until 6 June 2019) |
| 29/03/2019 | Olha Zemlyak | WADA & UAF | UKR | The athlete challenged the violation confirmed at first instance, namely: | Appeal dismissed – 8 years ineligibility from 5 July 2016 DQ results: from 5 July 2016 |
| 29/03/2019 | Olesya Povh | WADA & UAF | UKR | The athlete challenged the violation confirmed at first instance, namely: Use of a Prohibited Substance/Method (Article 2.2) | Appeal dismissed – 4 years ineligibility from 15 June 2016 DQ results: from 15 June 2016 |
| 27/07/2018 | Maria Farnisova (nee Savinova) | IAAF & RUSAF | RUS | The athlete challenged the infraction confirmed in first instance, namely: Use of a Prohibited Substance/Method (Article 2.2) – ABP case | Appeal dismissed – 4 years ineligibility from 24 August 2015
DQ results: 26 July 2010 to 26 August 2013 |
| 24/01/2019 | Svetlana Karamasheva | IAAF & RusAF | RUS | The athlete challenged the violation confirmed at first instance, namely: Use of a Prohibited Substance/Method (Article 2.2) / ABP case. | Appeal dismissed – 2 years 6 months ineligibility from 7 June 2017
DQ results: 14 July 2012 to 6 August 2014 |
| 17/11/2017 | IAAF | ADAK & Athletics Kenya & Benjamin Ngandu | KEN | AIU appealed the sanction imposed at first instance relating to the violation: Presence of a Prohibited Substance (Article 2.1) (Testosterone metabolites) | Appeal upheld - 4 years ineligibility from 17 November 2017 DQ results: 6 June 2015 to 17 November 2017 |
| 08/11/2017 | IAAF | UAE Federation & Betlhem Desalegn | UAE | AIU appealed the sanction imposed at first instance relating to the violation: Use of a Prohibited Substance/Method (Article 2.2) – ABP case | Appeal upheld - 2 years ineligibility from 10 August 2016 DQ results: 6 March 2014 to 13 August 2015 |
| 20/10/2017 | IAAF | FFA & Riad Guerfi | FRA | AIU appealed the first instance decision of acquittal relating to the violation: Use of a Prohibited Substance/Method (Article 2.2) – ABP case | Appeal upheld - violation confirmed 4 years ineligibility from 29 April 2015 DQ results: 24 April 2013 |
| 18/07/2017 | Tatyana Chernova | IAAF | RUS | The athlete challenged the juridiction of the 1st instance CAS panel | Appeal dismissed - 3 years 8 months ineligibility from 5 February 2016 DQ results: 15 August 2011 to 22 July 2013 |
| 01/06/2017 | Tetiana Gamera | IAAF & UAF | UKR | The athlete challenged the infraction confirmed in first instance, namely: Use of a Prohibited Substance/Method (Article 2.2) – ABP case | Appeal dismissed - 4 year ineligibility from 30 September 2015 DQ results: 26 August 2011 – 30 September 2015 |
| 29/05/2017 | Yassine Bensghir | IAAF & FRMA | MAR | The athlete challenged the infraction confirmed in first instance, namely: Use of a Prohibited Substance/Method (Article 2.2) – ABP case | Appeal dismissed - 4 years ineligibility from 12 April 2016 DQ results: 7 June 2014 – 12 April 2016 |
| 27/04/2017 | Lisa Christina Nemec | Croatian NADO & IAAF | CRO | The athlete challenged the infraction confirmed in first instance, namely: Presence of a Prohibited Substance (EPO) (Article 2.1) | Appeal dismissed - 4 years ineligibility from 29 October 2015 |