The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on 25 April 2016 in a case involving the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) against the All Russia Athletics Federation (ARAF), athlete Valeriy Borkin, and the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA). The dispute centered on anti-doping violations based on irregularities in Borkin’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. Borkin’s blood samples showed irregularities in hemoglobin and OFF-score values, suggesting blood doping through erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) or transfusions. Multiple experts confirmed these abnormalities, ruling out natural explanations like altitude training or medical conditions.
The IAAF appealed RUSADA’s decision, arguing that the applicable anti-doping rules were not correctly applied, particularly regarding the disqualification of results. The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, Mr. Romano Subiotto QC, and Mr. Mika Palmgren, addressed key legal principles, including the reliability of the ABP and the lex mitior principle, which favors applying the more lenient set of rules. The panel ruled that an athlete who does not challenge an ABP-based violation implicitly accepts its reliability as evidence. It also clarified that rules must be applied as a coherent set, not selectively mixed from different versions.
The panel found Borkin guilty of repeated and intentional doping, evidenced by abnormal blood profiles coinciding with major competitions. The violations were severe, involving multiple suppression and stimulation phases indicative of systematic doping. The IAAF sought disqualification of all results from August 2009 to October 2012, arguing that the fairness exception under Article 40.9 of the 2015 IAAF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) should not apply due to the deliberate nature of the violations. RUSADA and ARAF defended selective disqualification, citing fairness and proportionality, while Borkin challenged the ABP’s reliability and CAS jurisdiction, citing RUSADA’s suspension by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).
The panel rejected Borkin’s jurisdictional objections, affirming CAS’s authority. It upheld the IAAF’s position, disqualifying all results during the violation period, emphasizing that no fairness considerations justified retaining tainted results. The decision underscored the ABP’s validity and the need for strict enforcement to maintain competitive integrity. The ruling modified RUSADA’s original decision, imposing full disqualification and dismissing other relief requests. The case highlights the complexities of anti-doping enforcement, balancing scientific evidence, legal principles, and fairness in disciplinary measures.