The case involves Russian tennis player Andrey Plotniy, who appealed a decision by the International Tennis Federation (ITF) regarding a doping violation and subsequent sanctions. Plotniy tested positive for the prohibited substance Carphedon during a tournament in Kazakhstan in November 2009. He admitted to the violation and accepted a 15-month suspension starting from November 2009, ending in January 2011. The suspension prohibited him from participating in any tennis-related events sanctioned by the ITF or other governing bodies. However, in 2010, Plotniy participated in five tournaments in Germany, believing the suspension only applied to international events. His agent, Martina Petersen, testified that she had misunderstood the scope of the suspension, assuming it did not cover national tournaments. She admitted fault for not verifying the terms and assured Plotniy he could compete in local events. The German Tennis Federation (DTB) issued Plotniy a Player Identification without objection, further reinforcing his belief that participation was allowed. However, an objection from the Dülmen Open organizer in August 2010 led Petersen to review the Acceptance of Sanction Form, revealing the violation. Plotniy returned prize money and ranking points, expressing regret for the misunderstanding.
The ITF reviewed the case and concluded that Plotniy had violated the terms of his suspension without demonstrating "No Significant Fault or Negligence," a standard that could have mitigated his sanction. Consequently, the ITF reset his suspension period, making it effective from his last tournament participation in August 2010, extending his ineligibility until November 2011. Plotniy appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the extended sanction was disproportionate, given his reliance on his agent’s advice. The legal framework for the appeal was governed by the ITF’s anti-doping regulations, specifically the 2009 and 2010 Programmes, which prohibited ineligible players from participating in any capacity during their ban, including events sanctioned by national associations. The Panel found the provisions of both versions largely similar and applied the 2009 Programme since Plotniy’s original offense occurred under it.
The CAS upheld the ITF’s decision, ruling that Plotniy failed to meet the "No Significant Fault or Negligence" standard. The Panel emphasized that athletes bear responsibility for understanding and complying with anti-doping rules, even when relying on agents. Plotniy had signed an Acceptance of Sanction Form outlining the broad prohibition on participation but failed to take reasonable steps to inform himself of the rules. The Panel rejected his argument for a reduction under Article M.5.2 due to his lack of diligence. The decision reinforced the strict liability nature of anti-doping rules and the importance of athletes adhering to their sanctions. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sanction remained in effect, underscoring the consequences of failing to comply with suspension terms and the necessity of clarity in anti-doping regulations.