The case involves Romanian athlete Corina Mihaela Dumbravean and the Romanian National Anti-Doping Agency (RANAD), adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute centered on allegations that Dumbravean evaded a doping control on May 18, 2010, at Villa Olimpic Sport. RANAD accused her of refusing to provide a urine sample and attempting to tamper with the doping control process, violations under Romanian Law 227/2006 and IAAF rules. Dumbravean denied the allegations, claiming she was not present at the testing site and that the signatures on the control documents were forged.
The case raised several procedural and jurisdictional issues. Initially, the CAS Secretariat deemed the procedure free of charge under Article R65 of its Code, assuming RANAD acted under delegation from the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). However, the arbitrator later ruled that no formal delegation existed, making the standard fee-bearing procedure under Article R64 applicable. The appeal’s admissibility was also contested, with conflicting deadlines under Romanian law (21 days) and IAAF rules (45 days). The arbitrator applied the longer, more athlete-friendly deadline, accepting the appeal as timely filed.
On jurisdiction, Dumbravean argued that the Romanian Athletics Federation (FRA), not RANAD, should handle the case. The arbitrator upheld RANAD’s authority, citing Romanian law and IAAF rules permitting national federations to delegate anti-doping responsibilities. The fairness of RANAD’s hearing was also challenged, but the arbitrator dismissed these claims, noting that CAS’s full review remedied any procedural defects.
The core dispute revolved around the alleged evasion. RANAD presented evidence including a control report, signed documents, and witness testimonies from doping control officers, who consistently described Dumbravean’s refusal and flight. Dumbravean contested the evidence, submitting graphological reports disputing the signatures and witness statements supporting her absence. However, her witnesses provided inconsistent testimonies, undermining their credibility. A third graphological report commissioned by RANAD confirmed the signatures as genuine, and text messages allegedly sent by Dumbravean seeking help after the incident further supported RANAD’s case.
The arbitrator concluded that RANAD met the required standard of proof—higher than a balance of probabilities but less than absolute certainty—as per IAAF Rule 33. The evidence established that Dumbravean violated anti-doping rules by refusing the test and potentially tampering with the process. Given her prior doping violation in 2007 (a two-year suspension for recombinant EPO use), RANAD imposed a lifetime ban, which the arbitrator upheld. The sanction aligned with CAS jurisprudence emphasizing strict penalties for repeat offenses to deter doping and protect athlete health.
The CAS rejected Dumbravean’s appeal, confirming RANAD’s decision and the lifetime ban. The ruling underscored the rigorous enforcement of anti-doping regulations and the severe consequences of non-compliance, particularly for repeat offenders. The case highlighted the importance of credible evidence, procedural fairness, and the CAS’s role in resolving complex doping disputes.