The case involves the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) appealing a decision by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) regarding Russian athlete Yuliya Zaripova, who was found guilty of anti-doping rule violations based on irregularities in her Athlete Biological Passport (ABP). The ABP, an indirect method for detecting doping, revealed abnormal blood values between 2009 and 2012, suggesting the use of prohibited substances or methods like erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) or blood transfusions. Independent experts unanimously concluded these abnormalities were inconsistent with natural physiological conditions, pointing to deliberate blood doping.
The IAAF challenged RUSADA’s decision, which had imposed a two-year, six-month suspension on Zaripova and selectively disqualified her results from specific periods (June–August 2011 and July–September 2012). RUSADA applied the "lex mitior" principle, using the 2015 IAAF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) for disqualification, which included a "fairness exception" allowing selective disqualification, while applying the 2009 ADR for the suspension. The IAAF argued this hybrid approach was improper, insisting all results from July 2011 onward should be disqualified under the stricter 2009 rules, as Zaripova’s violations were intentional, severe, and prolonged.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel, composed of Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, Mr. Romano Subiotto QC, and Mr. Mika Palmgren, reviewed the case. It emphasized that disqualification of results is the default under anti-doping rules unless fairness explicitly dictates otherwise. The panel found no justification for the fairness exception, given the deliberate and systematic nature of Zaripova’s doping, which included manipulating blood values around major competitions like the 2011 World Championships and 2012 Olympics. Experts testified that her ABP patterns indicated blood doping, with no plausible medical explanation. The panel rejected arguments that delays in the disciplinary process or negative tests should mitigate sanctions, noting ABP evidence alone suffices to establish violations.
The CAS ruled in favor of the IAAF, disqualifying all Zaripova’s results from July 20, 2011, to her provisional suspension on July 25, 2013, including her Olympic and world titles. The decision underscored the importance of consistent rule application and the need for stringent penalties to deter doping and maintain competitive integrity. The panel highlighted that proportionality and fairness in anti-doping sanctions require eliminating any unfair advantage gained through violations, reinforcing the principle that intentional doping warrants severe consequences. The case set a precedent for handling ABP-based violations and clarified the limited scope for exceptions in disqualifying tainted results.
Ultimately, the ruling affirmed the reliability of ABP evidence and the necessity of robust anti-doping enforcement to protect clean athletes and uphold the credibility of international sports. The CAS dismissed all other appeals, solidifying its stance against selective disqualification in cases of deliberate and prolonged doping.