The case involves an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) concerning Belarusian gymnast Nadzeya Vysotskaya, who tested positive for the prohibited substance furosemide during the 2006 artistic gymnastics world cup in Ghent, Belgium. The FIG initially suspended Vysotskaya from May 2006 to December 2007, a decision WADA deemed too lenient, advocating for a standard two-year suspension. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on several critical issues. First, it determined that WADA was not obligated to monitor FIG’s website for press releases about the decision, upholding WADA’s right to appeal within the stipulated time limits. Second, the presence of furosemide in Vysotskaya’s sample constituted a doping violation under FIG rules, regardless of intent or performance-enhancing effects. Third, the panel rejected arguments that Vysotskaya’s minor status or the shorter career span of gymnasts should mitigate her responsibility, emphasizing the uniform application of anti-doping rules.
The CAS panel found Vysotskaya’s defense—speculating her drink might have been contaminated—insufficient, as she provided no concrete evidence to support her claim. Under Article 2.1 of the FIG Rules, the mere presence of a prohibited substance establishes a violation, and Vysotskaya failed to demonstrate no fault or negligence under Article 10.5. The panel also addressed procedural delays, noting the FIG’s failure to promptly notify WADA of its decision. While the provisional suspension began on September 12, 2006, the panel adjusted the remaining sanction to ensure the full two-year period was served, retroactively setting it from January 1, 2008, to September 12, 2008. All competitive results achieved by Vysotskaya between December 31, 2007, and the award notification were disqualified, with forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes.
The CAS ruling overturned the FIG’s decision, imposing a two-year suspension from September 12, 2006, to September 12, 2008, and disqualifying all results during this period. The decision underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping cases, where athletes are responsible for substances in their bodies, irrespective of intent. It also highlights the importance of formal notification procedures and timely appeals to maintain fairness and legal certainty in disciplinary processes. The ruling reinforces the integrity of anti-doping frameworks, ensuring consistent application of rules across all athletes, including minors and those in sports with shorter career spans. The case serves as a reminder of the rigorous standards athletes must adhere to and the consequences of failing to meet them.