The case CAS 2016/O/4463 involves the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the All Russia Athletics Federation (ARAF) against athlete Kristina Ugarova, concerning alleged anti-doping rule violations based on abnormalities in her Athlete Biological Passport (ABP). The IAAF charged Ugarova with violating Rule 32.2(b) of the IAAF Rules, citing abnormal blood values in samples collected between 2012 and 2013, which suggested potential blood doping. The case was referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) due to ARAF's suspension, preventing it from conducting a timely hearing. The sole arbitrator, Prof. Michael Geistlinger, addressed jurisdiction, procedural fairness, and the substantive merits of the case.
Ugarova contested the allegations, attributing the abnormal blood values to factors such as high-altitude training, dehydration, and mental stress from personal issues. However, expert testimony, including from Dr. York Olaf Schumacher and Prof. Giuseppe d’Onofrio, refuted these explanations, stating that the altitude at which she trained was insufficient to cause the observed deviations. The experts concluded that the fluctuations in hemoglobin (HGB), reticulocytes (RET%), and OFF-score values were highly indicative of blood manipulation, such as the use of erythropoietic stimulating agents (ESAs) or blood transfusions. The arbitrator emphasized that while abnormal ABP values alone do not confirm doping, the qualitative assessment by experts supported the conclusion that the abnormalities aligned with a doping scenario, particularly around the 2012 European Championships.
The arbitrator ruled that Ugarova committed an anti-doping violation under Rule 32.2(b), rejecting her arguments for reduced sanctions due to lack of significant fault or negligence. The standard two-year period of ineligibility was imposed, effective from her provisional suspension date of 7 September 2015. The IAAF sought aggravating circumstances to extend the sanction, but the arbitrator found insufficient evidence of multiple violations or a coordinated doping plan. Regarding disqualification of results, the arbitrator applied a fairness exception, aligning IAAF Rule 40.8 with the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC). While the IAAF initially sought disqualification from June 2012 to September 2015, the arbitrator limited it to six months, disqualifying results from 26 June 2012 to 25 December 2012, including forfeiture of titles and awards.
The case underscores the complexities of ABP-based anti-doping violations, highlighting the need for expert interpretation and credible explanations for abnormal values. It also illustrates the balance between strict enforcement of anti-doping rules and ensuring procedural fairness for athletes. The arbitrator’s decision reflects the rigorous scrutiny applied to ABP data and the legal processes involved in anti-doping disputes, ultimately upholding the integrity of the sport while considering the athlete’s rights.