The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on April 25, 2016, in a case involving the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the All Russia Athletics Federation (ARAF), athlete Olga Kaniskina, and the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA). The dispute centered on anti-doping violations based on irregularities in Kaniskina’s Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) between 2009 and 2012. The ABP, an indirect method for detecting doping, monitors biological markers over time to identify abnormal profiles suggesting prohibited substance use. Kaniskina’s ABP showed irregularities in her blood samples, leading to the conclusion that she had committed an anti-doping violation. While she criticized the reliability of the ABP, she did not challenge the decision, effectively accepting its validity.
The case addressed legal principles such as lex mitior (applying the more lenient set of rules), fairness, and proportionality. The panel emphasized that fairness involves evaluating multiple factors, including the nature of the violation, time elapsed, and impact on results, rather than relying on a single element. Proportionality requires that sanctions balance the misconduct’s severity with the governing body’s objectives, ensuring measures are necessary and justified. Kaniskina, a successful race walker, was subject to 12 blood tests between 2009 and 2012, with several samples showing abnormal values. The IAAF argued these abnormalities indicated doping, warranting disqualification of her results.
The ABP analysis revealed extreme fluctuations in hemoglobin and reticulocyte levels, consistent with blood doping practices such as the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) or blood transfusions. Experts unanimously concluded that these patterns were highly unlikely to result from natural physiological conditions and likely indicated prohibited methods. For instance, sample 8 showed an unusually high reticulocyte count (2.93%), inconsistent with natural responses, while other samples displayed suppressed reticulocyte levels, typical of doping cycles. Additionally, an extremely high ferritin level (5027 mcg/L) suggested iron overload, often linked to doping practices.
The IAAF appealed RUSADA’s decision, which had imposed a selective disqualification of Kaniskina’s results, arguing for a broader disqualification period. The IAAF contended that all results from August 2009 to October 2012 should be annulled, including performances at major events like the 2010 European Championships and the 2012 Olympic Games. RUSADA and Kaniskina defended the original decision, citing fairness and insufficient evidence for violations during specific competitions. The CAS panel rejected these arguments, finding no grounds for a fairness exception given the intentional and prolonged nature of the violations.
The panel upheld the disqualification of all competitive results from August 15, 2009, to October 15, 2012, emphasizing the need to nullify unfair advantages and maintain the integrity of athletics. The decision reinforced the ABP’s role in detecting doping and the importance of consistent rule application. The ruling underscored the severity of intentional anti-doping violations and the necessity of proportionate sanctions to deter future misconduct. The CAS panel’s final decision modified RUSADA’s original ruling, dismissing all other motions and reaffirming the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations.