The case involves two Russian biathletes, E. and A., who appealed a decision by the International Biathlon Union (IBU) after being found guilty of doping violations. The athletes tested positive for recombinant EPO (rEPO) during in-competition and out-of-competition tests in December 2008. The samples were analyzed by a WADA-accredited laboratory in Lausanne, with confirmation from another lab in Vienna. The athletes requested the analysis of their "B" samples, which also confirmed the presence of rEPO. The IBU imposed provisional suspensions and referred the cases to its Doping Hearing Panel (DHP), which upheld the violations and issued two-year suspensions.
The athletes appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing procedural flaws in the laboratory analysis and documentation. They claimed the lab failed to meet International Standards for Laboratories (ISL) requirements, particularly regarding the use of the most recent technology and the involvement of different analysts for "A" and "B" samples. The 2009 ISL had removed the requirement for different analysts, stipulating only that the "B" sample confirmation must occur in the same lab as the "A" sample. The panel noted that laboratories must adhere strictly to ISL standards and use the latest technology, especially during transitional periods between testing methods.
The principle of lex mitior (applying the less severe law if amendments occur) was discussed but deemed inapplicable to technical rules underlying scientific evidence. The panel also clarified that blood profile data submitted by the IBU could only support targeted testing, not serve as direct evidence of doping. Expert testimony confirmed the lab's conclusion that the samples contained exogenous rEPO, despite insufficient documentation on image interpretation criteria.
The athletes raised additional concerns, including sample mix-ups, chain of custody issues, and procedural violations such as gel polymerization time and reporting delays. The Panel dismissed these claims, attributing errors to poor handwriting and confirming no actual mix-up occurred. The clarity of photocopied images was questioned, but the Panel noted that the original electronic images were clear and formed the basis of the lab's conclusions. The Panel also rejected arguments about the lack of data on "positive" control samples, as rEPO, being a new biosimilar form, lacks approved positive controls.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the IBU's decision, dismissing the appeal and confirming the two-year suspensions. The panel emphasized the importance of laboratory compliance with ISL standards but found no substantive errors in the testing process that would invalidate the adverse findings. The athletes were ordered to bear arbitration costs, and their requests for legal fee reimbursement were denied. The ruling reinforced the strict application of anti-doping regulations while acknowledging procedural improvements needed in laboratory documentation. The case underscores the complexities of applying anti-doping regulations, particularly when procedural timelines intersect with evolving scientific standards. The Panel's decision hinged on the precise applicability of laboratory standards and technical documents at the time of sample analysis, emphasizing the importance of adherence to established protocols in doping cases.