The case of Alemitu Bekele Degfa, a Turkish long-distance runner of Ethiopian origin, involved serious doping allegations based on abnormalities detected in her Athlete Biological Passport (ABP). The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) collected six blood samples between 2009 and 2011, with the first five showing abnormal hematological profiles with a probability exceeding 99%. These findings, alongside an anonymous tip-off, prompted an investigation. An independent Expert Panel concluded that her blood profile was highly likely the result of prohibited substance or method use. Despite Bekele’s explanations—such as medical conditions like malaria, hyperthyroidism, and training-related issues—the Expert Panel rejected these claims. The Turkish Athletics Federation (TAF) imposed a four-year ineligibility period, citing aggravating circumstances, as the violations appeared part of a doping plan. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld the decision, emphasizing the high probability of abnormality in her blood profile met the standard of proof for doping offenses. The CAS also noted that aggravating circumstances, like prolonged doping or multiple violations, could justify increased sanctions but not automatically the maximum four-year penalty.
Bekele appealed the decision, arguing her abnormal blood profile resulted from severe malaria and her Ethiopian heritage, not doping. She also claimed financial constraints hindered her ability to challenge the IAAF’s expert evidence effectively. The IAAF, however, maintained that the four-year ban was justified due to aggravating circumstances, including a prolonged doping scheme with external assistance. They referenced prior CAS cases where four-year bans were upheld and highlighted their policy of stricter penalties for athletes contesting doping allegations unsuccessfully. The CAS panel evaluated the evidence, including expert testimony, which indicated artificial manipulation of red blood cells, likely through prohibited methods like EPO or blood transfusions. The panel acknowledged the repetitive and sophisticated nature of blood doping but emphasized the need for case-specific assessments rather than rigid precedents.
Ultimately, the CAS panel concluded that while Bekele’s actions warranted an increased sanction beyond the standard two years, her case did not meet the threshold for the maximum four-year penalty. They noted her violations occurred over a shorter period (one year) and targeted specific competitions, distinguishing her case from more extensive doping schemes. The panel imposed a two-year-and-nine-month ineligibility period, crediting her for time already served under her initial suspension. The ruling underscored the importance of proportionality and case-by-case evaluation in doping sanctions, balancing fairness with the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations. The decision reinforced the role of the ABP in detecting doping and the rigorous standards applied in anti-doping proceedings, highlighting the challenges athletes face in disputing scientific evidence. The case serves as a reminder of the complexities and legal frameworks governing doping disputes in international athletics.