STRICTLY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
IAAF TASKFORCE: PROGRESS REPORT TO IAAF COUNCIL, 11 MARCH 20161.

I am pleased to present this report to the IAAF Council on the progress that theRussian authorities have made to date in their efforts to satisfy the Reinstatement
Conditions set by this Council.

2.

The Taskforce (myself, Frank Fredericks, Geoff Gardner, Abby Hoffman and Anna
Riccardi) has met in person once in Moscow in January and again in Monaco lastnight, and it has also communicated by teleconference and by email as necessary.
The whole Taskforce met with the Russian representatives in Moscow on 11-12January 2016, and Taskforce counsel Jon Taylor and I have met with them anotherthree times, in Brussels on 22 December 2015, and in Moscow on 25-26 January andagain on 15-16 February 2016. Jon and/or I have also had intelligence-gathering
meetings or phone calls with other parties, in the US on 21 January and 22 February,in Germany on 29 January and 25 and 29 February, and in London on 18 February.
Jon and I also met with the IAAF President in London on 5 February to give him averbal progress report. And finally, as required by the Terms of Reference, I havecoordinated closely with WADA, which is working to bring RUSADA (the nationalanti-doping agency) back into compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code.

3.

The Russian delegation has been led by Mr Gennady Aleshin, the chair of the Interim
Coordination Committee appointed by the Russian Olympic Committee to coordinate
reinstatement efforts, together with Dimitri Shlyakhtin, who was elected as the newpresident of ARAF (now called RUSAF) on 16 January 2016. In addition, Natalia
Zhelanova, an advisor to Minister Mutko, has represented the Russian Ministry ofSport, which funds RUSADA and the Moscow anti-doping laboratory. They are allvery committed to getting RUSAF reinstated to IAAF membership as soon as possible
and have worked very hard and very professionally towards that goal. The Taskforce
has sought to assist them in that task, including going through the Terms ofReference and Verification Criteria in great detail to ensure that everyone is clear on
what is required.

4.

The Verification Criteria (appended to the Terms of Reference) are not the end inthemselves but a means to the end, which is to determine whether theReinstatement Conditions "have been met, and can reasonably be expected tocontinue to be met moving forward", namely: (i) full RUSAF compliance with theCode and IAAF Anti-Doping Rules; (ii) IAAF and RUSADA are able to conduct theiranti-doping programmes in Russia (in particular, drug-testing) effectively and withoutinterference; and (iii) as a result, the reintegration of Russian athletes into
international competitions will not jeopardise the integrity of those competitions. Inaddressing these issues, the Taskforce has asked itself: (a) do the Russian authorities
agree on the nature and scale of the problem identified in the WADA IC Report (i.e.,'a systemic culture of doping' whereby 'an open and accepted series of unethicalpractices and behaviours has become the norm'); and (b) are they serious about
trying to fix that problem? If not, then no amount of ‘box-ticking’ will help.

1

STRICTLY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
5.

6.

To date, the ROC ICC and RUSAF have made some significant progress towards
meeting the Verification Criteria. For example:
5.1

The previous governing council of the federation has been replaced in its
entirety, and its statutes have been amended to strengthen the anti-doping
commitments and obligations of both the federation and its regional
members.

5.2

Athlete support personnel implicated in the WADA Independent
Commission’s Report have been provisionally suspended pending the hearingof disciplinary charges, and formal decrees have been issued forbidding
athletes from having any interaction with Dr Portugalov, Mr Melnikov or Mr
Chegin, three of the worst offenders.

5.3

Moving forward, RUSAF will now be a party to all contracts signed by coaches
and other specialists, and those contracts will include specific and detailed
anti-doping commitments, together with termination rights and financial
penalties in case of breach.

5.4

There are proposals before the State Duma to strengthen the existing antidoping laws imposing criminal liability on athlete support personnel who
encourage or facilitate doping, including increasing the potential penalties (toinclude possible periods of imprisonment).

However, several very substantial issues remain outstanding. For example:
6.1

6.2

Several of the most important Verification Criteria have not yet been met. Inparticular:(a)delays by RUSAF in providing definitive athlete lists have delayed IAAF
testing of Russian athletes (VC para 5.2), while funding issues havedelayed national-level testing in Russia (supervised by UK Anti-Doping,in place of RUSADA);(b)

RUSAF is yet to complete and report on interviews with all of theathletes and athlete support personnel specified in VC para 4.3,
including seeking full disclosure from the 140 athletes/coaches foundto have committed ADRVs of the details of their doping activities; and(c)the attitude that has been adopted by the Russian authorities towards
Vitaly Stepanov and Juliya Stepanova does not encourage whistleblowing (VC para 6.2) (as demonstrated by the lack of meaningful
information obtained to date from interviewees).

There does not seem to be uniform acceptance of the nature and scope of
the problem (i.e., a culture that accepts doping), or uniform commitment tochanging that culture for good. The ARD disclosure last Sunday of a banned2

STRICTLY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
coach (Mokhnev) still coaching athletes and a regional coach offering to
supply steroids is deeply disturbing, especially if the documentary is correctthat Mokhnev’s name appeared on official results reports from recent
national events (we are checking that). The strong antipathy shown in many
quarters towards the whistle-blowers is also concerning; as are therevelations in the ARD documentary about the acting RUSADA DirectorGeneral (and, as an aside, WADA advises that progress towards real reform ofRUSADA is slow). None of this is helped by Minister Mutko announcing that
the Russian public prosecutor has found no evidence to support the WADA
Independent Commission’s allegations of state complicity in doping, yetfailing upon request by the Taskforce and by WADA to produce a copy of thepublic prosecutors' report for examination.
6.3

Also troubling is the failure of the Russian criminal authorities to date toprovide any of assistance requested of them by the French magistrate judge
investigating the allegations of a criminal conspiracy to cover up Russian ABPcases. The Taskforce was given very specific assurances by the Ministry ofSport on 25-26 January that such cooperation would be immediately
forthcoming, which turned out to be illusory. Yesterday a letter arrived
saying the criminal authorities are ‘executing’ the request, so we will have tosee what happens next. The Taskforce sees this point as critical. Our view isthat the Reinstatement Conditions – echoing the World Anti-Doping Code(Art. 22.3) and the UN Anti-Doping Convention (Art 13) – require the Russianauthorities to show that the cooperation between sports bodies and publicauthorities that is crucial to the fight against doping in sport is present inRussia, which means in turn they must secure the full support of the Russian
public authorities for the French criminal investigation. We ask the Council toconfirm and endorse that view.

7.

That concludes the report on the progress that the Russian authorities have made todate towards meeting the Reinstatement Conditions. Based on what we have seen,
the Taskforce recommends that the Council takes note that, although progress has
been made, further significant work is required to satisfy the Reinstatement
Conditions, and so reinstatement of RUSAF to membership of the IAAF is notappropriate at this stage.

8.

Lastly, the Taskforce has discussed the letter that has been sent to the IAAF Council
members seeking a ruling on Juliya Stepanova’s eligibility for International
Competitions. This issue impacts in various important ways on the work theTaskforce has been asked to do. The Taskforce therefore recommends that it begiven an opportunity to consider the issue further, including taking appropriate
legal and technical advice, and come back to the Council with a recommendation,
which it would anticipate being ready to do in around early May.

Rune Andersen, Taskforce Chair
For the Taskforce, 11 March 20163