The case centers on an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) concerning beach volleyball player Serguei Prokopiev, who tested positive for the prohibited anabolic steroid dehydrochloromethyl-testosterone during an out-of-competition test on 24 May 2015. RUSADA initially imposed a two-year ban on Prokopiev, effective from 28 May 2015, after he claimed the substance was unknowingly provided by a friend to treat a knee injury, supported by medical documentation. WADA appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the sanction was insufficient and that a four-year ban was warranted, as the violation was intentional. During the proceedings, Prokopiev conceded liability and agreed to the four-year ban, leading both RUSADA and WADA to accept a consent award, though they disagreed on the allocation of arbitration costs. WADA sought to have RUSADA bear the costs, asserting its initial decision was non-compliant, while RUSADA contended each party should cover its own expenses.
The case was heard by a sole arbitrator, Prof. Michael Geistlinger, who issued the final award on 26 February 2016, upholding the four-year ban and disqualifying Prokopiev's results from 24 May 2015 onward. The arbitrator also addressed the cost dispute separately. The decision underscores the principle that in appeals against anti-doping sanctions, if all parties agree the initial sanction was incorrect, the panel may impose a revised sanction provided it complies with anti-doping rules. It highlights WADA's role in ensuring consistent enforcement of regulations and the strict liability principle in doping violations, even when athletes claim unintentional use.
The appeal was deemed admissible as WADA filed it within the 21-day deadline stipulated by RUSADA’s Anti-Doping Rules (ADR), which also exempted WADA from exhausting internal remedies since no other party had appealed. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed CAS’s jurisdiction under Article R47 of the CAS Code, which allows appeals if the involved sports body’s regulations permit it or if there is a specific arbitration agreement. On the merits, the parties agreed through exchanged letters that Prokopiev would serve a four-year ineligibility period for using a non-specified prohibited substance, consistent with Article 10.2.1.1 of RUSADA ADR. The Sole Arbitrator found no grounds to reject this agreement, confirming the violation under Article 2.1 of RUSADA ADR and imposing the sanction. The ruling also disqualified all competitive results Prokopiev achieved from 24 May 2015 onward, including forfeiting medals, points, and prizes.
The final award upheld WADA’s appeal, set aside RUSADA’s original decision, and imposed the agreed-upon sanctions on Prokopiev. It dismissed all other motions or requests for relief, concluding the case with a binding decision that reinforced the four-year ban and aligned with WADA’s stance on intentional violations. The case serves as a reminder of the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations and the consequences of violations, regardless of intent.