IAAF TASKFORCE: INTERIM REPORT TO IAAF COUNCIL, 17 JUNE 20161.

On behalf of the Taskforce, I am pleased to present this report to the IAAF Council on
the progress that the Russian Athletics Federation ('RusAF') has made to date insatisfying the conditions for reinstatement set out in the Taskforce's Terms ofReference.

2.

As a reminder, the Council suspended RusAF from membership in November 2015,
after a WADA Independent Commission concluded there was a systemic and deeplyrooted culture of doping in Russian athletics. The Council decided that, in order tobe reinstated to membership, RusAF must satisfy a number of specified 'Verification
Criteria', and must demonstrate that the following Reinstatement Conditions "havebeen met, and can reasonably be expected to continue to be met moving forward":
1st,that RUSAF complies in full with the World Anti-Doping Code and IAAF AntiDoping Rules;

2nd,that the IAAF and RUSADA (the Russian NADO) are able to conduct their antidoping programmes in Russia (in particular, drug-testing) effectively andwithout interference; and3rd,that as a result, the reintegration of Russian athletes into international
competitions will not jeopardise the integrity of those competitions.

In short, RusAF must show that there is now a culture of zero tolerance towards
doping in Russian athletics, and that RusAF, RUSADA, and the public authorities in
Russia, working in cooperation, have created an anti-doping infrastructure that is
effective in detecting and deterring cheats, and therefore provides reasonableassurance and protection to clean athletes both inside and outside of Russia.
3.

As a result of the enormous efforts and professionalism of Mr Aleshin of the Russian
Olympic Committee, RusAF president Mr Shlyakhtin, and their colleagues, there has
been significant progress towards satisfaction of the Verification Criteria to date. In
particular:
3.1

RusAF has replaced all members of the old ARAF Council with new members,
replaced the old committees and commissions, made all new RusAF staff signanti-doping declarations, and introduced a new contract to be signed by all
national team athletes and coaches, acknowledging their anti-doping
obligations.

3.2

A domestic hearing panel ruled that race-walking coach Viktor Chegin wascomplicit in the many anti-doping rule violations committed by athletes
under his charge, and so banned him for life from participation in the sport.

1

4.

3.3

RusAF signed an agreement with the Federal Drug Control Service,committing to mutual cooperation in the prevention of illegal trafficking insubstances and methods that are banned in sport.

3.4

RusAF decided to change its rules so that appeals from domestic decisions
involving Russian athletes will be heard not by a domestic appeal panel but
rather by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland.

3.5

RusAF and the ROC decided to change their selection policy so that athleteswith a serious anti-doping rule violation on their record will not be selected
for the Olympics.

3.6

Mr Aleshin secured the support of the Russian Government for a bill thatwould amend the Russian Criminal Code to impose criminal liability on
athlete support personnel who induce athletes to dope, with potential
penalties to include fines and even periods of imprisonment. The State
Parliament of the Russian Federation voted to adopt the amendments on 15
June 2016.

3.7

The Ministry of Sport announced just last week that anti-doping classes will
be introduced into the curriculum in schools and sports academies, teaching
students to "reject any encouragement to cheat to achieve sporting success".

Nevertheless, the Taskforce is clear that several important Verification Criteria havestill not yet been fully satisfied:
4.1

Verification Criterion No. 5 requires that Russian athletes be accessible for no
notice testing by international DCOs commissioned by the IAAF or by UK AntiDoping (for RUSADA). While this has happened in some cases, there remainvarious serious issues with such testing, including certain issues outlined in
the 'Update on the status of Russia testing' report issued by WADA on 15
June 2016. As just one example, four athletes in the national squad regularly
stay in 'closed cities' that cannot be accessed without first obtaining a special
permit from the Ministry of Sport. To date, the Ministry has not provided
such permits, which has prevented proper testing of these athletes.

4.2

In order to ensure that the past problems are fully understood and all those
who are part of the previous culture of doping are rooted out, Verification
Criterion No. 4.3 requires RusAF to interview (a) all of its athletes and support
personnel who were accused of wrongdoing in the WADA Independent
Commission Report (to get their response to the allegations) or who had an
active working relationship with Dr Portugalov, Mr Melnikov or Mr Chegin (toestablish their knowledge of any doping activities); (b) the 120 athletes and 2coaches found to have committed a doping violation in the last five years (tosee where they got the prohibited substances from and who else (if anyone)
was complicit in their violations); and (c) all athletes selected for the Russian
national team in the past five years (to establish their knowledge of any
2doping activities). RusAF has completed many of these interviews, but there
are still many more that have not yet been conducted. Once RusAF has
completed them, it needs to report to the Taskforce on what it has learned,
and then agree with the Taskforce on what follow-up action is required. Until
then, it has not satisfied Verification Criterion 4.3.
4.3

Verification Criterion No. 6 requires RusAF to establish a strong anti-doping
culture among its officials, athletes and athlete support personnel. However:
4.3.1 Elite Russian coaches and athletes still do not appear to understand or
to be willing to acknowledge the nature and extent of the doping
problem in their sport:a.

After Mr Chegin's life-ban for multiple doping offences wasannounced in March 2016, a number of other coaches andathletes asserted publicly that his ban was politically motivatedand asked President Putin to intercede to "restore the goodname of a real professional and a true patriot".

b.

Former Olympic champion Yuriy Burzakovskiy is now the headcoach of the Russian national team, and is said to lead "a newgeneration" of clean Russian athletes.
However, Mr
Burzakovskiy, and fellow Olympic champion Yelena Isinbaeva,
have both publicly dismissed the contents of the WADA
Independent Commission's report as "groundless", eventhough in interviews with the Taskforce it emerged that neitherof them has ever actually read that report. In addition, in his
interview with the Taskforce, Mr Borzakovskiy insisted that
there is no particular doping problem in Russian athletics, anddismissed EPO findings and adverse passport findings made in
respect of Russian athletes on the basis that the analyticalmethods that produced those findings are "unreliable".

c.

In May 2016, the Taskforce interviewed several athletes who
had previously admitted anti-doping rule violations andaccepted lengthy bans and disqualification of their results.
Those athletes nevertheless insisted to the Taskforce that they
had not committed any violations, and denied that there was aculture of doping in Russian athletics. Only one of them was
prepared to admit that she had doped.

d.

The transcripts that RusAF has provided of interviews it has
conducted show that other national team athletes almost all
adopted the same position. There was only one moment ofcandour, when one banned athlete stated: "I can only say thatdoing sports at such level is just not possible without any
pharmacological assistance. Just impossible".

3

e.

Re-testing of Beijing 2008 samples uncovered eleven adverse
analytical findings for Russian track & field athletes, and retesting of London 2012 samples uncovered another five. Oneof the athletes in question, former 400m Olympic medallist
Tatyana Firova, stated in interview last week: "A normal
person can take banned substances if they want to, so why
can't athletes take them as well? How else can we achieve highresults?"

4.3.2 Consistent with this attitude, there remains a clear lack of respect for
the anti-doping rules:a.

Historically RusAF has not had any contractual relationshipwith the vast majority of Russian athletics coaches; instead
those coaches are employed by the federal or regional
governments and/or by publicly or privately funded clubs.
Whether for this or some other reason, currently RusAF
appears incapable of enforcing doping bans imposed on
Russian coaches.

b.

The Council will recall that an ARD documentary broadcast in
March 2016 showed that Mr Melnikov (a former national teamcoach who featured prominently in the WADA Independent
Commission's report) was still coaching athletes and was still
listed as their coach on official entry lists at RusAF
competitions, despite being provisionally suspended sinceAugust 2015.

c.

RusAF insisted that that would be remedied and would not
happen again. However, another ARD documentary, broadcast
on 8 June 2016, featured material suggesting that Mr Viktor
Chegin was continuing to coach elite race-walkers in April
2016, even though he was provisionally suspended in August
2015 and banned for life in February 2016, and even though
RusAF specifically notified its athletes in February 2016 that allinteraction with him was forbidden.

d.

The 8 June ARD documentary also showed that another coachthat RusAF said it had warned off for offering to supply
prohibited substances to athletes (Mr Yuri Gordeev) is stillapparently coaching athletes, in Kislovodsk.

e.

These and other incidents suggest that Russian athletes andcoaches do not feel they need to respect doping bans, evenwhen the eyes of the world are upon them. Although RusAF istaking various measures to try to remedy this situation, atpresent the Taskforce does not know whether or when thosemeasures will be effective.
44.4

Verification Criterion No. 6.2 requires RusAF to actively promote an open
environment that encourages whistle-blowing. However, RusAF, the ROC andthe Ministry of Sport have adopted at best a highly ambivalent attitude
towards key whistle-blower Yuliya Stepanova and her husband Vitaly
Stepanov. Just last week, a spokesman for President Putin referred to Yuliya
as a "Judas". Perhaps as a result of that treatment, to date in most of theathlete interviews it has conducted, RusAF has been met with blanket denials
of any wrongdoing, and/or silence about how the violations occurred andwho was complicit. The Taskforce has encountered the same approach fromathletes it has interviewed. For example, one young athlete specificallystated that he would never blow the whistle on anything he saw, because it
was not his place to do that. There has been no meaningful whistle-blowing
from Russian athletes.

4.5

At its March meeting, the IAAF Council agreed with the Taskforce that, in
accordance with the requirements of the World Anti-Doping Code and the
UNESCO Anti-Doping Convention, RusAF must show it has the full support
and cooperation of the public authorities in Russia in its fight against dopingin Russian athletics. Unfortunately it has not been able to meet thisrequirement either.
4.5.1 In particular, the Council was clear that it expected the Ministry ofSport to secure the assistance of the Russian criminal authorities forthe investigation being conducted by the French authorities into theconspiracy between former officials of the IAAF and ARAF to cover up
Russian ABP cases before the 2012 Olympics. The Ministry of Sport
subsequently provided the Taskforce with a letter from the Russiancriminal authorities, indicating that they would execute two formal
requests for evidence received from the French authorities. However,the Russian criminal authorities then advised the French authorities
that they were conducting their own investigation into the alleged
conspiracy, and that as a result they were unable to execute either of
the French requests for evidence. They have not responded tosubsequent correspondence from the French authorities. As a result,to date, no evidence at all has been sent to the French authorities toassist them in their current investigation.
4.5.2 On 8 June, the Russian authorities announced that they had initiatedtheir own criminal case against certain (unnamed) ARAF officials for"abuse of power" in 2013, and insisted that only they havecompetence to investigate activities taking place in Russia (although
they might permit foreign representatives to be present during theinvestigation, provided they submit valid requests). The Taskforce
takes no encouragement from this response, since it was the same
Russian criminal authorities who reportedly investigated theallegations of wrongdoing set out in the WADA Independent
Commission's report and concluded there was no evidence to support5

them (and then refused to provide a copy of their report to theTaskforce).
4.5.3 In fact, the problem may be even more fundamental than just a lack ofcooperation. Minister Mutko and his colleagues at the Ministry ofSport (which funds RUSADA and the Moscow anti-doping laboratory)
have assured the Taskforce that the Ministry has had no involvementin previous doping in Russian sport, and in fact fully and strongly
supports the anti-doping effort. However:a.

In May the New York Times published detailed allegations by
Dr Grigory Rodchenkov, the former head of the Moscow antidoping laboratory, that he was instructed by Ministry of Sport
officials to give athletes steroids prior to the Sochi Olympics,
and that the FSB (the Russian federal security service) worked
out an undetectable way of opening the urine sample bottles,
so enabling Rodchenkov to prevent detection of the doping
scheme by swapping clean samples for dirty samples at Sochi.
The Taskforce understands that Rodchenkov alleges the same
scheme was also implemented for the IAAF WorldChampionships in Moscow in August 2013.

b.

While the Russian Ministry has strenuously denied these
allegations, the New York Times obviously decided there wassufficient basis to publish them, and Rodchenkov is confident
enough to invite re-testing of stored samples from Sochi andMoscow to confirm what he has alleged. Furthermore, theTaskforce understands from Professor Richard McLaren (theindependent person appointed by WADA to lead a teaminvestigating the allegations in the New York Times article, andrelated matters) that there is supporting evidence.

c.

Professor McLaren has also advised the Taskforce of his"preliminary finding" that there is "sufficient corroborated
evidence to confirm … a mandatory state-directed manipulationof laboratory analytical results operating within the Moscowaccredited laboratory from at least 2011 forward including theperiod of the IAAF World Championships in 2013", whereby the
Ministry of Sport advised the laboratory which of its adverse
findings it could report to WADA, and which it had to cover up.
This is consistent with an allegation made in the ARD
documentary of 8 June that the Ministry of Sport directed the
Moscow laboratory to cover up a 2014 adverse analyticalfinding in respect of a footballer's sample.

d.

Professor McLaren is due to report his final conclusions to
WADA on 15 July 2016.

6

5.

To sum up:
5.1

The deep-seated culture of tolerance (or worse) for doping that got RusAF
suspended in the first place appears not to have changed materially to date.
The head coach of the Russian athletics team and many of the athletes onthat team appear unwilling to acknowledge the nature and extent of thedoping problem in Russian athletics; and certain athletes and coaches appear
willing to ignore the doping rules.

5.2

A strong and effective anti-doping infrastructure capable of detecting anddeterring doping has still not yet been created. Efforts to test athletes in
Russia have continued to encounter serious obstacles and difficulties; RusAF
appears incapable of enforcing all doping bans; and RUSADA is reportedly atleast 18-24 months away from returning to full operational compliance with
the World Anti-Doping Code.

5.3

There are detailed allegations, which are already partly substantiated, that
the Ministry of Sport, far from supporting the anti-doping effort, has in factorchestrated systematic doping and the covering up of adverse analyticalfindings.

5.4

A number of other important Verification Criteria have also not been met.

In such circumstances, the Taskforce is very clear that the Reinstatement Conditions
have not been satisfied and in particular that RusAF's athletes cannot credibly return
to international competition without undermining the confidence of theircompetitors and the public in the integrity of that competition.
6.

The Taskforce has considered the consequences of a decision not to reinstate RusAF,
and has obtained legal advice. In particular, it has noted Minister Mutko's argumentthat RusAF should be reinstated because "clean Russian athletes should not bepunished for the actions of others". It comments as follows:
6.1

There can only be confidence that sport is reasonably clean in countries
where there is an engrained and longstanding culture of zero tolerance fordoping, and where the public and sports authorities have combined to build astrong anti-doping infrastructure that is effective in deterring and detecting
cheats.

6.2

By their failures to date, the Russian authorities have denied that benefit totheir athletes. That does not mean that all Russian athletes are doping; but it
does mean that none of the assurances that a strong anti-doping culture anda strong and effective anti-doping infrastructure provides are present in
Russia at this time.

6.3

In fact, without casting aspersions on any individual athlete, where theculture is so compromised and the infrastructure is so lacking, unfortunately
there can be no presumption that any athlete coming from that system is7

"clean". In particular, a record of negative tests is no guarantee of anything.
For example, the Council will recall the letter sent by fourteen "clean" Russian
athletes in November 2015, asking the Council not to punish them for the sinsof others. Two of the signatories to that letter (Anna Chicherova and Maria
Abakumova) are among the Russian track & field athletes whose samples
from the 2008 or 2012 Olympics have recently re-tested positive for banned
substances.
6.4

At a time when many athletes and members of the public are losing
confidence in the effectiveness of the anti-doping movement, the IAAF must
send a clear and unequivocal message that it is prepared to do absolutely
everything necessary to protect the integrity of its sport, and that it will
require its member federations to do the same, without compromise, even ifthat means excluding a member federation (and its athletes and otherrepresentatives) until the member is ready, willing and able to discharge its
anti-doping responsibilities clearly and unequivocally. Only then can otherathletes, and the public and other stakeholders in the sport, be assured that
the IAAF is prepared to do whatever it takes to protect fair competition andto ensure the playing-field is level for all.

6.5

If RusAF was reinstated so that Russian athletes can compete in International
Competition, even though the prevailing doping culture has not yet beencorrected, and the necessary anti-doping infrastructure has not yet been put
in place, then not only would the IAAF lose the ability to force through real
and lasting change in Russia. In addition, its claim to be ready to take thetough decisions that are necessary to protect the integrity of the sport would
lose any credibility.

6.6

Undoubtedly, non-reinstatement of RusAF would mean that some clean
Russian athletes will miss out on Rio. But while that is unfortunate, it isnothing compared to the injustice that so many athletes have suffered in thepast in being cheated out of medals, prize money and glory by their Russiancompetitors, and that so many more could suffer in the future if thisopportunity to solve the problem is wasted. In short, this is the price that has
to be paid for the failure of the Russian authorities to fix the problem before
now, and the Russian authorities alone are to blame for that. As the WADA
Independent Commission report stated: "The root cause of any nonparticipation is … the unacceptable conduct of those responsible for thesituation giving rise to the IC investigation and Report. It is they who must
assume the responsibility for their actions. The unacceptable conduct caneasily be solved by those responsible, who must assume their responsibilities
to protect the clean athletes, and thereby enable the clean athletes toparticipate once again".

8

7.

As a result, the Taskforce believes that it is absolutely necessary and proportionate,
and therefore not "unfair", to maintain RusAF's suspension even though as a result
the athletes in its flawed system will not be eligible for International Competitions.
In fact, the Taskforce suggests that it is strange that other persons affiliated with
RusAF (not athletes) have been permitted to remain active in international affairs. It
recommends this position be reviewed as soon as possible by the IAAF Council.

8.

The Taskforce does consider, however, that if there are individual athletes who canclearly and convincingly show that they are not tainted by the Russian systembecause they have been outside the country, and subject to other, effective antidoping systems, including effective drug-testing, then there should be a process
through which they can apply for permission to compete in International
Competitions, not for Russia but as a neutral athlete. The advice is that this would
strengthen the IAAF's legal position as well. Therefore, the Taskforce is separately
proposing a rule change to that effect.

9.

For all of the reasons set out above, the Taskforce unanimously recommends that
RUSAF not be reinstated to membership of the IAAF at this stage.

10.

Assuming that recommendation is accepted, the Taskforce will continue to carry out
its mandate of overseeing RusAF's (hopefully intensified) efforts to meet the
Verification Criteria and the Reinstatement Conditions.

Rune Andersen, Taskforce Chair
17 June 20169

Appendix: List of Taskforce Meetings
To date, Taskforce members and/or counsel have met with the following parties:
22.12.15

Representatives of ROC ICC, RusAF and Ministry of Sport (in Brussels).

11-12.01.16

Representatives of ROC ICC, RusAF and Ministry of Sport (in Moscow).

21.01.16

Vitaly Stepanov and Patrick Magyar (in New York).

25-26.01.16

Representatives of ROC ICC, RusAF and Ministry of Sport (in Moscow).

29.01.16

Hajo Seppelt (in Berlin).

11.02.16

First VP Renaud Van Ruymbeke, Premier Vice-Président chargé del'instruction au Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (in Paris).

15-16.02.16

Representatives of ROC ICC, RusAF and Ministry of Sport (in Moscow).

25.02.16

Hans-Joerg Wirz and Patrick Magyar (in Zurich).

14.03.16

Richard Pound, WADA Independent Commission (in Lausanne).
David Howman and Rob Koehler of WADA (in Lausanne).

21-22.03.16

Representatives of ROC ICC, RusAF and Ministry of Sport (in Moscow).

11.04.16

Gunther Younger, WADA Independent Commission (in Munich).

14.04.16

Olivier Niggli of WADA (in Oslo).

23-24.04.16

Representatives of ROC ICC, RusAF and Ministry of Sport (in London).

25-27.05.16

Representatives of ROC ICC, RusAF and Ministry of Sport (in Moscow).

31.05.16

Hajo Seppelt (Lausanne).

01.06.16

First VP Renaud Van Ruymbeke, Premier Vice-Président chargé del'instruction au Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (in Paris).

10

TASKFORCE RECOMMENDATIONThe Taskforce recommends that the Council exercises its powers under Article 11(c)of the Constitution to adopt the amendments set out below to the IAAF Competition
Rules 2016-2017, with immediate effect.
Rune Andersen, Taskforce Chairman
17 June 2016
IAAF COMPETITION RULES 2016-2017

DEFINITIONS
Neutral Athlete
As specified in Rule 22.1A, an athlete who is granted special eligibility by the Council to compete in
one or more International Events in an individual capacity and who satisfies at all relevant times any
conditions to such eligibility specified by the Council. All provisions in the Rules and Regulations thatare applicable to athletes shall apply equally to Neutral Athletes, unless expressly stated otherwise;
and any coach, trainer, manager, Athlete Representative, agent, team staff, official, medical or paramedical personnel, parent or any other Person employed by or working with a Neutral Athlete
participating in an International Competition shall be an Athlete Support Personnel for purposes ofthese Rules.

CHAPTER ONE: INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIONSRULE 4 Requirements to Compete in International Competitions1.

2.

No athlete may take part in an International Competition unless he:(a)

is a member of a Club affiliated to a Member; or(b)is himself affiliated to a Member; or(c)has otherwise agreed to abide by the rules of a Member; or(d)has been granted special eligibility by the Council to compete in that International
Competition as a Neutral Athlete, and has satisfied any conditions to such eligibility
specified by the Council; and(e)for international Competitions at which the IAAF is responsible for doping control(see Rule 35.7), has signed an agreement in a form set by the IAAF by which heagrees to be bound by the Rules and Regulations (as amended from time to time)
and to submit all disputes he may have with the IAAF or a Member to arbitration
only in accordance with these Rules, accepting not to refer any such disputes to any
Court or authority which is not provided for in these Rules.

Members may require that no athlete or Club affiliated to the Member may take part in aninternational Competition in a foreign Country or territory without the Member’s written
11approval. In such a case, no Member hosting a competition shall allow any foreign athlete orClub of the Member in question to take part without evidence of such permit certifying thatthe athlete or Club is eligible and permitted to compete in the Country or territory
concerned. Members shall notify the IAAF of all such permit requirements. To facilitate
compliance with this Rule, the IAAF shall maintain on its website a list of Members with suchrequirements. This Rule does not apply to Neutral Athletes.
3.

No athlete affiliated to a National Federation may be affiliated to another Member without
previous authorisation from his National Federation of origin, if the Rules of that Federation
require such authorisation. Even then, the National Federation of the Country or territory inwhich the athlete is residing cannot enter any athlete’s name for competitions in anotherCountry or territory without previous authorisation from the National Federation of origin.
In all cases under this Rule, the National Federation of the Country or territory in which theathlete is residing shall send a written request to the athlete’s National Federation of origin,and the National Federation of origin shall send a written reply to that request within 30
days. Both of these communications shall be by a means that generates an
acknowledgement of receipt. E-mail that includes a receipt function is acceptable for thispurpose. If the response of the athlete’s National Federation of origin is not received within
the 30-day period, the authorisation shall be deemed to have been given. In the event of anegative response to a request for authorisation under this Rule, which response must be
supported by reasons, the athlete or the National Federation of the Country or territory inwhich the athlete is residing may appeal against any such decision to the IAAF. The IAAF
shall publish guidelines for the filing of an appeal under this Rule and these guidelines shallbe available on the IAAF website. To facilitate compliance with this Rule, the IAAF shallmaintain on its website a list of National Federations with such authorisation requirements.

Note: Rule 4.3 concerns athletes aged 18 or over as at the 31st of December of the year inquestion. The Rule does not apply to athletes who are not Citizens of a Country or Territory or
to political refugees or to Neutral Athletes.
RULE 5 Eligibility to Represent a Member
1.

In international Competitions held under Rules 1.1(a), (b), (c), (f) or (g), Members shall be
represented only by athletes who are Citizens of the Country (or territory) which theaffiliated Member represents and who comply with the eligibility requirements of this Rule
5.
...

6.

This Rule 5 does not apply to Neutral Athletes.

CHAPTER 2: ELIGIBILITY
RULE 20 Definition of Eligible Athlete
An athlete is eligible to compete if he agrees to abide by the Rules and has not been declaredineligible.
RULE 21 Restriction of Competition to Eligible Athletes

12

1.

Competition under these Rules is restricted to (i) athletes who are under the jurisdiction of a
Member and who are eligible to compete under the Rules; and (ii) Neutral Athletes who
satisfy the conditions of eligibility specified by the Council, including signing agreements on
terms acceptable to the IAAF, in which they agree (among other things) to be bound by theRules and Regulations (as amended from time to time) and to submit all disputes they may
have with the IAAF or a Member to arbitration only in accordance with these Rules,
accepting not to refer any such disputes to any Court or authority which is not provided forin these Rules.

2.

In any competition under the Rules, the eligibility of an athlete competing shall be
guaranteed by the Member to which the athlete is affiliated. This Rule does not apply to
Neutral Athletes.

3.

The eligibility rules of Members shall be strictly in conformity with those of the IAAF and noMember may pass, promulgate or retain in its constitution or regulations any eligibility ruleor regulation which is in direct conflict with a Rule or Regulation. Where there is a conflict
between the eligibility rules of the IAAF and the eligibility rules of a Member, the eligibility
rules of the IAAF shall apply.

RULE 22 Ineligibility for International and Domestic Competitions
1.

1A.

The following persons shall be ineligible for competitions, whether held under these Rules or
the rules of an Area or a Member. Any athlete, athlete support personnel or other person:(a)whose National Federation is currently suspended by the IAAF. This does not apply
to national competitions organised by the currently suspended Member for the
Citizens of that Country or territory;(b)

who has been provisionally suspended or declared ineligible under the rules of his
National Federation from competing in competitions under the jurisdiction of that
National Federation, in so far as such suspension or ineligibility is consistent withthese Rules;(c)

who is currently serving a period of provisional suspension from competition underthese Rules;(d)

who does not meet the eligibility requirements set out in Rule 141 or the Regulations
thereunder;(e)

who has been declared ineligible as a result of a breach of the Anti-Doping Rules in
Chapter 3;(f)

who has been suspended or banned by the ethics Commission for a violation of theCode of ethics, pursuant to the Statutes of the Ethics Commission;(g)

who has been declared ineligible as a result of conduct specified in Rule 23.

Notwithstanding Rule 22.1(a), upon application, the Council (or its delegate(s)) may
exceptionally grant eligibility for some or all International Competitions, under conditions
defined by the Council (or its delegate(s)), to an athlete whose National Federation iscurrently suspended by the IAAF, if (and only if) the athlete is able to demonstrate to the
comfortable satisfaction of the Council that:
13

(a)

the suspension of the National Federation was not due in any way to its failure toprotect and promote clean athletes, fair play, and the integrity and authenticity ofthe sport; or(b)

if the suspension of the National Federation was due in any way to its failure to put
in place adequate systems to protect and promote clean athletes, fair play, and theintegrity and authenticity of the sport, (i) that failure does not affect or taint theathlete in any way, because he was subject to other, fully adequate, systems outsideof the country of the National Federation for a sufficiently long period to provide
substantial objective assurance of integrity; and (ii) in particular the athlete has forsuch period been subject to fully compliant drug-testing in- and out-of-competition
equivalent in quality to the testing to which his competitors in the International
Competition(s) in question are subject; or(c)that the athlete has made a truly exceptional contribution to the protection andpromotion of clean athletes, fair play, and the integrity and authenticity of the sport.

The more important the International Competition in question, the more corroborating
evidence the athlete must provide in order to be granted special eligibility under this Rule
22.1A. Where such eligibility is granted, the athlete shall not represent the suspended
National Federation in the International Competition(s) in question, but rather shall compete
in an individual capacity, as a 'Neutral Athlete'.

14

Taskforce Note relating to Yuliya Stepanova
1.

The Council asked the Taskforce to get legal and technical input on Yuliya Stepanova's
request to be granted eligibility to compete in International Competitions as a neutral
athlete, independently of any reinstatement of RusAF, and to report to the Council with arecommendation.

2.

The Taskforce notes that:

3.

2.1

From 2007 to early 2012, Yuliya Stepanova took steroids and EPO. The IAAF charged
her with blood-doping in January 2013, and she immediately accepted a two year
ban, and served it in full, ending in January 2015.

2.2

She has been out of Russia since October 2014 (shortly before ARD broadcast theevidence she had gathered of systemic cheating in Russian athletics), and has been
subject to drug testing by the IAAF as a member of its Registered Testing Pool.

2.3

From a technical perspective, she has met the qualifying standards for both theEuropean Athletics Championships and the athletics competition at the 2016
Olympic Games.

2.4

From a legal perspective, her request could be considered if Competition Rule22.1(a) is amended to permit exemptions where an athlete has made a truly
exceptional contribution to the fight against doping in sport.

2.5

The Taskforce considers that Yuliya Stepanova has made a truly exceptional
contribution to the fight against doping in sport. She took great personal risks inorder to break open a doping culture that no one else on the inside was willing toexpose, and no one on the outside was able to expose. That contribution has led tofurther investigations and disclosures. Without her contribution, the unique
opportunity that now exists to fix the system would very likely not exist. Instead
RUSADA and the Moscow laboratory would be continuing to operate in acompromised manner; coaches and doctors would be continuing to administer PEDs
to their athletes; and those athletes would be continuing to compete in international
competition with a wholly illicit advantage. Yuliya Stepanova has therefore struck agreat blow for clean athletes everywhere.

2.6

Whistle-blowing is vital to the fight against doping in sport. From a policy
perspective, therefore, the Taskforce considers it extremely important to send a verystrong message to athletes everywhere that such contributions are highly valued.

The Taskforce therefore unanimously recommends that the Council (1) amend Competition
Rule 22.1(a) with immediate effect, to permit exemptions where an athlete has made a truly
exceptional contribution to the fight against doping in sport; and (2) refer Yuliya Stepanova's
application to an appropriate panel as soon as possible, with a recommendation that it
consider that application favourably.

Rune Andersen, Taskforce Chair
17 June 201615

16