The case involves a dispute between the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and Russian athlete Tatyana Chernova, along with the All-Russia Athletics Federation (ARAF), regarding allegations of doping violations. The IAAF accused Chernova of blood doping based on abnormalities in her Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) and the presence of dehydrochloromethyltestosterone (oral turinabol) in a retested urine sample from 2009. The case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in 2016, with Prof. Michael Geistlinger serving as the sole arbitrator. The IAAF sought a period of ineligibility ranging from two to four years, disqualification of Chernova’s competitive results from 2009 to 2016, and financial penalties. Chernova denied the allegations, challenging the jurisdiction of CAS and arguing procedural unfairness.
The arbitrator confirmed CAS jurisdiction under Rule 38.3 of the IAAF Rules, which allows direct referral to CAS when a member federation fails to act within stipulated deadlines. Procedural matters were governed by the 2016-2017 IAAF Rules, while substantive issues followed the 2012-2013 Rules, as they were more favorable to the athlete. The ABP findings were treated as a single anti-doping violation, with the arbitrator emphasizing that abnormal values alone do not prove doping; expert interpretation is required to determine if deviations indicate prohibited methods. The IAAF’s expert panel concluded that Chernova’s ABP abnormalities, particularly elevated hemoglobin levels during competition periods, were unphysiological and likely resulted from blood manipulation. Chernova failed to provide credible explanations for these irregularities.
The arbitrator found Chernova guilty of two separate violations: using oral turinabol and engaging in blood doping between 2009 and 2013. Given the severity and duration of the violations, the arbitrator imposed a three-year, eight-month ineligibility period, crediting the two years Chernova had already served for her prior steroid violation. Her results from August 2011 to July 2013 were disqualified, including forfeiture of titles, medals, and prize money. The decision underscored that disqualification aims to correct unfair advantages rather than punish the athlete, aligning with CAS precedents and legal principles of proportionality.
The ruling highlighted the complexities of interpreting ABP data and the importance of expert analysis in anti-doping cases. It reinforced the strict liability principle in doping violations, where intent or negligence need not be proven. The case also demonstrated the challenges of balancing fairness, jurisdiction, and evidentiary rules in international sports arbitration. Ultimately, the decision upheld the integrity of competitive sports by ensuring tainted performances were removed from records.