The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an award on March 31, 2016, in the case between the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the Belarus Athletic Federation (BAF) along with athlete Vadim Devyatovskiy. The case centered on doping allegations stemming from the retesting of Devyatovskiy's urine samples from the 2005 IAAF World Championships, which initially showed no adverse findings but later tested positive for oxandrolone and methandienone in 2012. The CAS panel, composed of Judge James Reid QC, Prof. Massimo Coccia, and Mr. Jeffrey Benz, addressed three primary issues: the admissibility of WADA's appeal, the athlete's right to attend or be represented during the B sample analysis, and the absence of sufficient proof of a "use violation."
The panel ruled that WADA's appeal was admissible, rejecting arguments that WADA had missed the 21-day deadline or acted improperly by relying on the IAAF for evidence. It clarified that the appeal deadline begins only after receiving the complete case file, and WADA's actions did not breach procedural fairness. On the critical issue of the B sample analysis, the panel emphasized the athlete's fundamental right to be present or represented by a chosen expert during the process. It found that Devyatovskiy was not given a reasonable opportunity to exercise this right, as he was notified late at night and given only two hours to respond. This procedural failure was deemed significant enough to disregard the B sample results, even if the denial of this right did not affect the analytical outcome. The decision underscored the importance of strict adherence to fair procedural principles in doping cases, given the serious consequences of such allegations.
Regarding the "use violation," the panel noted that while analytical evidence might support such a claim in some cases, additional evidence beyond speculation is required. Here, allegations of a national doping conspiracy involving the athlete were insufficient to meet the required standard of proof. The case originated from the retesting of Devyatovskiy's 2005 sample, which initially tested negative but showed positive results in 2012. By then, the athlete had retired and held leadership roles in Belarusian athletics and politics. The BAF Disciplinary Commission cleared him due to procedural violations during the B sample analysis, and the CAS panel was tasked with determining whether these procedural issues were dispositive before addressing the substantive doping allegations.
The panel's decision reinforced the necessity of upholding procedural rights in anti-doping cases, ensuring athletes have fair opportunities to defend themselves. It highlighted the complexities of anti-doping litigation, including jurisdictional and procedural challenges, and the importance of clear communication and adherence to protocols. The case also revealed logistical and communication gaps, such as language barriers and last-minute arrangements, which contributed to the procedural irregularities. Ultimately, the panel dismissed WADA's appeal, upheld the BAF's decision, and ordered WADA to contribute CHF 6,000 toward the athlete's legal costs, while the BAF bore its own expenses. The ruling underscored the balance between rigorous anti-doping enforcement and the protection of athletes' procedural rights.