CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10992 — World Anti-Doping Agency v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) & Mikhail Akimenko

"Akimenko" · CAS imposed a full two-year ban on Russian high jumper Akimenko for three whereabouts failures, rejecting RUSADA's one-year reduction.

What happened in Akimenko

Mikhail Akimenko, a Russian international high jumper, accumulated three Whereabouts Failures within a twelve-month period: a Missed Test on 4 December 2022 (athlete was at his brother's place after a dispute with his partner), a Missed Test on 8 August 2023 (apartment number missing from ADAMS filing), and a Missed Test on 29 October 2023 (athlete drove to a family member's location due to grandmother's illness without updating ADAMS). RUSADA's Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee found an ADRV under Article 4.4 of the RUSADA ADR but classified the athlete's fault as 'normal' and reduced the standard two-year sanction to one year under Article 12.3.2. WADA appealed to CAS seeking the full two-year ban. The Sole Arbitrator found that across all three failures the athlete demonstrated an unacceptable degree of nonchalance and a worryingly negligent approach to his whereabouts obligations. Personal circumstances (relationship dispute, grandmother's illness) did not reduce fault. The ADAMS apartment-number issue was attributed to the athlete's own failure to verify his filing, not a system malfunction. With two prior strikes, the athlete should have been on 'red alert.' CAS imposed the full two-year period of ineligibility commencing from the date of the award, with results disqualified from 29 October 2023. The case reinforces that the standard sanction for whereabouts violations is two years and that personal hardship does not automatically justify reduction.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10992

On 13 December 2023, RUSADA notified Akimenko of a potential ADRV for three Whereabouts Failures within a twelve-month period. On 29 January 2024, RUSADA formally charged him under Article 4.4 of the RUSADA ADR. On 25 April 2024, the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee found the ADRV established, classified the athlete's fault as 'normal,' and imposed a one-year period of ineligibility starting 25 April 2024, with results disqualified from 29 October 2023. WADA received the complete case file on 21 October 2024 and filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS on 11 November 2024, within the twenty-one-day deadline under Article 15.2.3.4 of the RUSADA ADR. WADA asked CAS to set aside the one-year sanction and impose the full two-year standard sanction. RUSADA supported WADA's position on sanction. The athlete, granted legal aid and represented by pro bono counsel, sought to uphold the one-year ban or, alternatively, a sanction no greater than eighteen months. A videoconference hearing was held on 22 January 2026.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10992

• An athlete's personal emotional circumstances (relationship dispute, family illness) do not excuse or reduce fault for Whereabouts Failures under Article 4.4 of the RUSADA ADR.
• Athletes bear personal responsibility to ensure the accuracy and completeness of ADAMS filings, including apartment numbers; the absence of specific ADAMS training is not a valid defence.
• Where no evidence exists that an athlete tried to avoid testing, the standard two-year sanction under Article 12.3.2 of the RUSADA ADR applies and may only be reduced on the basis of the athlete's degree of fault.
• An athlete who already has two Whereabouts Failures on record must be on 'red alert' and take every step to avoid a third failure; failure to do so weighs against any reduction of sanction.
• The starting date of the ineligibility period imposed by CAS is the date of the CAS award, not the date of the lower-instance decision, where CAS replaces rather than merely confirms that decision.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator began by confirming that the ADRV itself was undisputed and that no evidence suggested the athlete was trying to avoid testing, meaning the discretion to reduce the two-year standard sanction was in principle available. However, assessing all three Whereabouts Failures together, the arbitrator found the athlete's conduct uniformly negligent. For the first failure, the athlete admitted he 'completely forgot' to update ADAMS after leaving his training camp; emotional distress from a partner dispute was insufficient mitigation. For the second failure, the arbitrator rejected the claim of an ADAMS system malfunction, noting no evidence supported it, and held that athletes must learn and comply with the ADAMS system as it operates, including the obligation to enter apartment numbers in the Address Book. The athlete's own Answer conceded he should have double-checked the Q3 filing. For the third failure, the athlete again admitted forgetting to update ADAMS despite knowing he was changing location; the arbitrator noted that with two prior strikes the athlete should have been on 'high alert,' citing CAS 2020/A/7528 para. 184. The arbitrator also relied on CAS 2020/A/7526 & 7559 para. 213 for the principle that athletes must be held accountable to maintain the credibility of the whereabouts system. The DCO's conduct argument was dismissed as irrelevant to fault assessment once the missed tests were undisputed. The starting date was fixed at the CAS award date per Article R57 of the CAS Code and CAS 2011/A/2515.

Why Akimenko matters in CAS jurisprudence

Akimenko reinforces that the two-year standard sanction for three Whereabouts Failures is the baseline and that personal hardship — whether emotional distress or family emergency — does not automatically reduce fault to below 'significant.' The award also clarifies that an athlete's argument about ADAMS technical failures must be supported by evidence, and that the obligation to ensure filing accuracy, including apartment numbers, rests entirely with the athlete. The 'red alert' principle for athletes with two prior strikes is reaffirmed.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2020/A/7528 CAS 2020/A/7256, 7559 CAS 2015/A/4210 CAS 2011/A/2515

Frequently asked questions about Akimenko

Why did CAS increase Akimenko's ban from one year to two years?

The RUSADA Anti-Doping Committee had classified Akimenko's fault as 'normal' and reduced the standard two-year sanction to one year under Article 12.3.2 of the RUSADA ADR. On WADA's appeal, the Sole Arbitrator found that across all three Whereabouts Failures the athlete demonstrated an unacceptable degree of nonchalance and a worryingly negligent approach, and that none of his personal circumstances — a dispute with his partner, a missing apartment number in ADAMS, or his grandmother's illness — reduced his degree of fault sufficiently to justify any reduction from the two-year standard sanction.

Does a missing apartment number in ADAMS excuse a whereabouts missed test?

No. In Akimenko, the Sole Arbitrator held that it is the athlete's personal duty to ensure the accuracy and completeness of all ADAMS filings, including apartment or room numbers. The athlete's claim that the ADAMS system failed to save the apartment number when copying the address from Q2 to Q3 was unsupported by evidence, and the argument that he had not received specific ADAMS training was rejected as without merit. Athletes must learn how to use the system and verify their filings.

Can family emergencies or personal distress reduce fault for whereabouts failures under the RUSADA ADR?

In Akimenko, the Sole Arbitrator held that personal issues such as a serious dispute with a partner or a family member's illness could have impacted the athlete but did not absolve him of the stringent requirement to be diligent with his whereabouts obligations. The athlete's emotional state was therefore insufficient to reduce his degree of fault or justify a reduction from the two-year standard sanction under Article 12.3.2 of the RUSADA ADR.

When does the ineligibility period start when CAS imposes a longer ban than the first-instance body in a whereabouts case?

In Akimenko, the Sole Arbitrator held that where CAS replaces rather than merely confirms the lower-instance decision, the ineligibility period commences on the date of the CAS award, not the date of the RUSADA Anti-Doping Committee decision. Relying on Article R57 of the CAS Code and CAS 2011/A/2515, the arbitrator fixed the start date as 10 August 2026, while crediting any period of ineligibility already served before that date.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.