The case revolves around Stefan Ivanov Vassiliev, an international bobsleigh athlete and president of the Bulgarian Bobsleigh and Toboggan Federation (BBTF), who tested positive for the banned substance methenolone enanthate during an out-of-competition test conducted by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in November 2004. The Fédération Internationale de Bobsleigh et de Tobogganing (FIBT) initially imposed a two-year ban on Vassiliev, but the BBTF later reduced it to one year, citing emergency medical treatment and Vassiliev's cooperation in identifying doping violations. The FIBT contested this reduction, leading to a legal dispute that was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS addressed several key issues, including jurisdictional authority and procedural fairness. It ruled that the BBTF, not the FIBT, had the authority to manage doping cases under FIBT’s own rules, even when the test was initiated by FIBT or WADA. The CAS also emphasized that the burden of proving no fault or negligence rested with the athlete, requiring a "balance of probability" standard. Vassiliev argued that the prohibited substance was administered during emergency surgery, which was beyond his control. While the CAS acknowledged this, it noted that Vassiliev failed to apply for a retroactive Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE), constituting negligence.
The CAS concluded that while Vassiliev was not entirely at fault, his negligence justified a reduced sanction rather than a complete elimination. The FIBT’s initial two-year ban was upheld, as the BBTF lacked the authority to unilaterally reduce it. The case highlighted the importance of procedural adherence in anti-doping regulations and the necessity for athletes to proactively seek TUEs when using prohibited substances for medical reasons.
Further examination revealed that the substance detected in Vassiliev’s sample was part of the drug "Primabulane depot," administered during emergency hernia surgery. Expert testimony confirmed that the drug’s metabolites could remain detectable for up to two months, aligning with the timeline of Vassiliev’s test. The Panel acknowledged that Vassiliev had no control over the medical treatment but found him negligent for not informing his doctors about his athlete status or inquiring about the medications administered.
Ultimately, the CAS partially upheld Vassiliev’s appeal, maintaining the one-year suspension but adjusting its start date to the day of the sample collection, 22 November 2004, to account for procedural delays and communication failures by the governing bodies. The ruling underscored the importance of procedural fairness and proper communication in disciplinary proceedings, balancing strict anti-doping regulations with consideration of the athlete’s circumstances. The final decision reinforced the FIBT’s authority in imposing sanctions while acknowledging mitigating factors in doping violations.