The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding an anti-doping rule violation by Russian race walker Mikhail Ryzhov. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) filed the case directly with CAS due to the suspension of the Russian Athletic Federation (ARAF), which would typically handle such matters. Ryzhov, an international-level athlete, tested positive for recombinant Erythropoietin (r-EPO) during an out-of-competition test in June 2015. The substance, which enhances oxygen-carrying capacity, is prohibited under the 2015 WADA Prohibited List with no allowable threshold. Ryzhov initially requested a B-sample analysis but later withdrew due to financial constraints, effectively waiving his right to further testing. The IAAF informed Ryzhov that it would assume responsibility for disciplinary proceedings due to ARAF's suspension and offered him the choice to request a hearing before CAS or accept a four-year sanction. When Ryzhov failed to respond, the IAAF referred the case to CAS as the sole adjudicatory body.
The CAS panel determined that Ryzhov had not provided any evidence or explanation to contest the intentional use of r-EPO, nor had he established grounds for reducing his sanction. Consequently, the panel imposed a four-year period of ineligibility, in line with IAAF and WADA rules. The decision underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are responsible for prohibited substances in their bodies, regardless of intent. The case also highlights CAS's role in adjudicating disputes when national federations are unable to do so.
The procedural aspects of the case involved multiple steps, including the IAAF's offer to Ryzhov to either have a hearing before a sole CAS arbitrator or a single CAS panel with no further appeal, provided WADA and other relevant organizations consented. Ryzhov eventually confirmed his preference for a single CAS hearing without appeal, which WADA and RUSADA agreed to. The IAAF then filed a Request for Arbitration with CAS, seeking a sole-instance adjudication. CAS acknowledged the request and invited responses from Ryzhov and ARAF, warning that failure to respond could result in proceedings continuing without their input. The case proceeded under the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division, ensuring no further appeals.
The IAAF argued that the presence of r-EPO in Ryzhov’s A sample constituted a violation, and since Ryzhov waived analysis of the B sample, this waiver itself provided sufficient proof of the violation under the IAAF Rules. The case proceeded without further participation from Ryzhov, leaving the Panel to deliberate based on the written submissions provided by the IAAF. The ruling underscores the intentional nature of Ryzhov’s violation, the systemic doping issues at the Saransk training center, and the legal mechanisms enabling CAS to adjudicate such cases directly. The decision reinforces strict anti-doping enforcement and the consequences for intentional violations.
The Panel concluded that Ryzhov committed an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 32.1 of the IAAF Rules, which defines doping as the presence of a prohibited substance in an athlete’s sample, with no requirement to prove intent, fault, or negligence. The presence of r-EPO, which has no quantitative threshold, constituted a violation under Rule 32.2(a). Additionally, the athlete’s use of r-EPO, a performance-enhancing substance typically injected by endurance athletes, violated Rule 32.2(b). The burden of proof rested on the IAAF, with the standard being "comfortable satisfaction," higher than a balance of probability but less than beyond a reasonable doubt. Ryzhov provided no explanation for the presence of r-EPO in his system, nor did he present any defense or exculpatory evidence.
Under Rule 40 of the IAAF Rules, a first-time violation for non-specified substances like r-EPO carries a four-year ineligibility period unless the athlete proves the violation was unintentional. Since Ryzhov failed to demonstrate lack of intent, the Panel imposed the standard four-year sanction. The case highlighted broader issues of doping in Russian athletics, particularly in race walking, and the challenges in addressing systemic violations when athletes and federations refuse to cooperate. The Panel’s decision underscored the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and the consequences of failing to