The case revolves around a doping violation involving four Indian athletes—Akkunji Ashwini, Priyanka Panwar, Tiana Mary Thomas, and Sini Jose—who tested positive for prohibited substances, methandienone and stanozolol, during out-of-competition tests conducted by the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) in June 2011. The athletes claimed the positive results were due to contaminated supplements, specifically Ginseng Kianpi pills, provided by their coach, Yuri Ogorodnik, who was appointed by the Sports Authority of India (SAI). The initial decision by the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ADDP) found the athletes guilty but reduced their suspensions to one year, citing no significant fault or negligence, as they had trusted their coach and had no prior doping issues. This decision was appealed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), leading to a review by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS examined key legal principles, including the scope of its review under Article R57 of the CAS Code, the standard of proof for establishing how the prohibited substances entered the athletes' systems (balance of probability), and the possibility of reducing sanctions based on no significant fault or negligence. The athletes argued they were unaware of the contamination and had relied on their coach, but CAS found they failed to exercise due diligence. Despite warnings about supplement risks, the athletes did not verify the supplements' safety, consult medical professionals, or conduct independent testing. CAS emphasized that athletes bear personal responsibility and cannot shift blame to third parties like coaches.
The IAAF contested the athletes' claims, presenting evidence that the supplements were not consistently listed on doping control forms and that tests on different batches of Kianpi pills by WADA-accredited laboratories found no prohibited substances. The athletes countered that the specific batch they consumed was contaminated, as confirmed by the New Delhi Laboratory. The Sole Arbitrator acknowledged the plausibility of contamination but ruled the athletes were significantly negligent for not taking basic precautions, such as researching the supplements or consulting a doctor.
CAS upheld the IAAF's appeal, imposing a two-year suspension starting from the decision date, as the athletes had not promptly admitted the violation. Their competitive results from the sample collection dates until the provisional suspension were disqualified. The ruling reinforced the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, stressing athletes' duty to ensure the substances they consume are free from prohibited substances. The case highlighted the challenges of proving contamination and the importance of athlete education and vigilance in adhering to anti-doping rules. The decision underscored the need for better anti-doping infrastructure in India to prevent similar incidents in the future.