The case involves Russian race walker Vera Sokolova, who was found guilty of anti-doping rule violations by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) after her urine samples tested positive for recombinant erythropoietin (r-EPO), a prohibited substance under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) filed the case directly with CAS due to the suspension of the Russian Athletics Federation (ARAF), which would typically handle such matters initially. The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Matthew Mitten, Prof. Ulrich Haas, and Mr. Chi Liu, applied the CAS Appeals Arbitration Procedure, even though the case was not technically an appeal. Sokolova, an international-level athlete, was tested out-of-competition on 2 June 2015 in Saransk, Russia. Both her A and B samples confirmed the presence of r-EPO, a substance known to enhance endurance performance.
The IAAF notified Sokolova of the adverse finding on 10 July 2015, outlining her rights, including the option to request analysis of her B samples and review laboratory documentation. Sokolova initially accepted a provisional suspension and requested B-sample analysis but later withdrew the request due to financial constraints. She subsequently sought to reinstate the B-sample analysis after securing funds, but the IAAF declined, citing procedural deadlines. The CAS panel ruled that since Sokolova failed to prove the violation was unintentional or provide any explanation for the presence of r-EPO, she was subject to a four-year period of ineligibility, as stipulated by anti-doping regulations. The decision emphasized that r-EPO has no threshold limit, meaning any detectable amount constitutes a violation.
The case also highlighted systemic issues, as six other race walkers tested at the same facility reported adverse findings for EPO, and the samples were heavily diluted, suggesting a coordinated effort to mask prohibited substances. The panel noted obstructive behavior, such as athletes avoiding testing for nearly 12 hours and failing to answer calls from the Doping Control Officer (DCO). Sokolova did not submit any defense or evidence, nor did she request a hearing, opting instead for the panel to decide based on written submissions. The CAS confirmed that all communications were properly delivered to her, and she was informed of her rights, including the option to request a hearing.
Jurisdiction was established under the 2016-2017 IAAF Competition Rules, which allowed the case to be referred directly to CAS due to the suspension of ARAF and the absence of a timely hearing at the national level. The rules permitted CAS to act as the sole adjudicatory body in anti-doping cases, especially involving international-level athletes. The IAAF’s request for arbitration was filed on 19 February 2016, and the panel affirmed its authority to rule on the matter without prior hearings, given the circumstances.
The panel concluded that Sokolova violated Rule 32.2(a) by the presence of r-EPO in her samples and Rule 32.2(b) by its use, given its performance-enhancing nature and typical administration via injection. Under Rule 40 of the IAAF Rules, a first-time violation for presence or use of a prohibited substance typically results in a four-year period of ineligibility, subject to potential reductions under specific circumstances. However, Sokolova’s lack of cooperation and the absence of mitigating factors led the panel to impose the standard sanction. All competitive results from 2 June 2015 to the start of her provisional suspension on 15 July 2015 were disqualified, leading to forfeiture of titles, medals, and other awards.
The case underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and the severe consequences for intentional violations. It also highlights the challenges of addressing doping in sports, particularly when systemic issues and non-cooperation obstruct accountability and transparency. The panel’s decision reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the rigorous enforcement of anti-doping rules.