The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a case involving the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against the International DanceSport Federation (IDSF) and athletes Boris Maltsev and Zarina Shamsutdinova, who refused to undergo a doping test during the 2008 IDSF Asian Championships in Chinese Taipei. The athletes, ranked 157th in the IDSF World Ranking, were selected for testing after winning the event but refused to provide urine samples, citing reasons such as the absence of a Kazakhstan federation representative, lack of prior warning, and not signing a consent form. The IDSF initially imposed a one-year ineligibility period, but WADA appealed, arguing for the standard two-year sanction under anti-doping regulations.
The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Brigitte Stern, Mr. Quentin Byrne-Sutton, and Mr. Goetz Eilers, emphasized that the principle of equality among athletes does not justify leniency based on a federation's size or resources. The World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) ensures harmonized anti-doping measures globally, and athletes must comply with testing procedures regardless of their awareness of the rules. The panel found the athletes' reasons for refusal—such as the absence of a national representative or prior warning—unjustified, as no rules mandated these conditions for a valid test. Signing a consent form was also not a prerequisite for the duty to submit to testing, which arises from competition participation.
The athletes later apologized, claiming ignorance of the rules and lack of malicious intent. However, the panel ruled that their apologies did not mitigate their refusal to comply. The absence of mitigating factors meant the athletes were deemed significantly negligent, warranting the standard two-year ineligibility period. The panel rejected the IDSF's reduced sanction, aligning with WADA's appeal to enforce the full penalty. The decision underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, holding athletes accountable regardless of intent or extenuating circumstances.
The case also addressed procedural aspects, including CAS jurisdiction and the admissibility of WADA's appeal. The CAS confirmed its authority under Article R47 of its Code, as the IDSF's decision was final and no further internal remedies were available. The appeal was deemed timely, filed within the 21-day deadline. The IDSF argued that its athletes might have less awareness of anti-doping rules due to the federation's size, but the CAS rejected this, stressing the need for uniform rule application to ensure fairness in sports.
The panel ultimately imposed a two-year ineligibility period on the athletes, effective from the date of the refused test (December 7, 2008), with credit for the one-year suspension already served. It also upheld the disqualification of all competitive results from that date, including forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes. The ruling reinforced that athletes bear primary responsibility for compliance with anti-doping regulations, irrespective of organizational failures. The case highlights the importance of strict adherence to anti-doping protocols to maintain integrity and fairness in sports.