The case of Sandra Ristivojevic before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) involved a dispute with the International Skating Union (ISU) over an alleged anti-doping rule violation during the 2013 Nebelhorn Trophy in Oberstdorf, Germany. Ristivojevic, a 17-year-old Serbian ice skater, was selected for doping control on September 27, 2013, but left the competition venue without confirming her selection status, citing illness. The next day, she and her mother attempted to arrange testing but were refused. The ISU Disciplinary Commission initially ruled that Ristivojevic violated Article 2.3.1 of the ISU Anti-Doping Rules, which requires athletes to ensure they are not selected for testing before leaving the venue. The Commission reduced her suspension from two years to one, citing exceptional circumstances, but disqualified her results and imposed costs.
Ristivojevic appealed to CAS, arguing her illness and lack of intentional evasion, while the ISU sought to reinstate the two-year ban. The CAS panel clarified that Article 2.3.1 is distinct from Article 2.3 (refusal to submit to testing) and focused on whether the ISU made sufficient efforts to recall her for testing. The panel found that Ristivojevic did violate Article 2.3.1 by leaving without confirmation but noted the ISU failed to properly recall her, as required by its own rules. The panel emphasized that her subsequent attempts to comply demonstrated good faith, undermining the ISU’s claim of deliberate evasion.
The panel rejected the ISU’s counterclaim for a two-year ban, deeming it inadmissible, and ruled that Ristivojevic’s violation fell under Article 10.3.1 subsection 2, which carries lighter penalties. Considering her youth, clean record, and the ISU’s procedural lapses, the panel reduced her suspension to nine months, starting from February 1, 2014. The decision upheld the disqualification of her results but dismissed other ISU requests, including cost reimbursement. The ruling highlighted the need for anti-doping authorities to balance strict enforcement with fairness, ensuring athletes are given reasonable opportunities to comply with testing protocols. The case underscored the importance of clear communication and procedural adherence in upholding the integrity of anti-doping efforts while safeguarding athletes’ rights.