The case involves Y., a Russian cross-country skier, who was found to have violated anti-doping rules after testing positive for recombinant erythropoietin (rEPO) during a competition in Val di Fiemme, Italy, on January 2, 2009. The initial analysis of her A sample, conducted by a WADA-accredited laboratory in Dresden, Germany, detected rEPO, a prohibited substance under the FIS Anti-Doping Rules (FIS ADR). This finding was later confirmed by a second opinion from another WADA-accredited laboratory in Barcelona. Following a provisional suspension imposed by FIS on August 21, 2009, Y. initially announced her retirement but later requested the analysis of her B sample, which also confirmed the presence of rEPO.
The FIS Doping Panel concluded that Y. had committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 of the FIS ADR and imposed a two-year ineligibility period, effective from the date of her provisional suspension (August 21, 2009, to August 20, 2011). Additionally, all her competitive results from the date of the positive sample were disqualified, with forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes. Y. contested the decision, arguing procedural irregularities in the B sample analysis and questioning the scientific validity of the testing methods. She claimed she was denied the right to attend the entire analysis process and challenged the reliability of the IEF-DB Method used to detect rEPO, as outlined in WADA’s Technical Document (TD2009EPO). The Panel rejected these arguments, upholding the validity of the testing methods and finding no merit in her reliance on the SDS-PAGE Method, which was not mandatory for confirming the adverse analytical finding.
Y. appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which upheld the FIS ruling. The CAS panel emphasized the reliability of the IEF-DB Method, a well-established technique for detecting rEPO, and ruled that additional SDS-PAGE analysis was unnecessary unless doubts arose about the origin of the EPO. The panel also affirmed that while athletes have the right to attend the B sample opening and primary analysis, this does not extend to non-confirmatory procedures like the extended gel analysis. The CAS confirmed the two-year sanction, reinforcing the principle that WADA-accredited laboratory results carry a presumption of validity unless compelling scientific evidence proves otherwise.
The case underscores the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations and the limited grounds for challenging established testing protocols. The Panel systematically addressed Y.'s objections, including concerns about exercise-induced effects, protein concentration, background interference, sample dilution, degradation, and software setup, concluding that none of these factors compromised the reliability of the results. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to standardized testing protocols and the validity of scientific methods in anti-doping enforcement. Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Y.'s appeal, upholding the initial FIS decision and finalizing the two-year ineligibility sanction. The ruling was issued on October 1, 2010, marking the end of the legal proceedings.