The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in a doping dispute between the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and Russian athlete Mariya Savinova-Farnosova, along with the All-Russia Athletics Federation (ARAF). The IAAF accused Savinova-Farnosova of violating anti-doping rules through the use of prohibited substances such as Parabolan and growth hormones, as well as blood doping, supported by evidence from her Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) and covert recordings obtained by whistleblower Yuliya Stepanova. The ARAF, suspended at the time, was unable to conduct a hearing, leading the IAAF to refer the case directly to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator applied Swiss procedural law, which allows broad discretion in evidence assessment, and ruled that illegally obtained evidence could be admissible if the interest in uncovering the truth outweighed privacy concerns. The ABP was deemed reliable for detecting doping, though abnormal values alone were insufficient without expert interpretation. The panel emphasized that prolonged doping use, knowledge of wash-out periods, and external support indicated a sophisticated doping scheme, warranting aggravated sanctions.
The evidence included recordings where Savinova-Farnosova admitted to using banned substances and detailed her doping practices. The ABP data showed irregularities, particularly elevated hemoglobin levels before major competitions, suggesting blood manipulation. The athlete denied the allegations, attributing abnormalities to pregnancy, altitude training, and medical conditions, but expert analysis dismissed these explanations. The Sole Arbitrator found the combination of ABP irregularities and recorded admissions sufficient to prove doping violations. The arbitrator imposed a four-year period of ineligibility, starting from the date of provisional suspension (24 August 2015), and disqualified all competitive results from 26 July 2010 to 19 August 2013, including forfeiture of titles, medals, and prize money. The decision balanced the severity of the violations with fairness considerations, noting the lack of evidence for doping after 2013 and the delayed investigation process. The ruling underscored the complexities of doping cases, highlighting the interplay between evidentiary reliability, procedural fairness, and the proportionality of sanctions. The case reinforced CAS's role in adjudicating disputes where national federations are unable to act, ensuring consistent application of anti-doping regulations while upholding principles of justice and fairness.