The case involves the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and Russian middle-distance runner Ekaterina Poistogova, concerning allegations of doping violations. The IAAF accused Poistogova of using prohibited substances, including oxandrolone, peptides, and EPO, based on evidence gathered from witness statements and secret recordings by fellow athlete Yulia Stepanova. These recordings, part of a documentary exposing systemic doping in Russian sports, revealed conversations about doping practices within Russian athletics. The proceedings were directly referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) under IAAF Rule 38.19, which allows anti-doping cases to be heard by CAS without a prior hearing if all parties consent. The case followed CAS appeal arbitration procedures to expedite the process while ensuring alignment with standard anti-doping regulations.
The evidence against Poistogova included testimonies and recordings, which the IAAF argued were reliable under IAAF Rule 33(3), permitting any reliable means of proof, even potentially illegally obtained evidence, if it serves the interest of uncovering the truth. Poistogova contested the evidence, claiming the recordings were inaudible, lacked context, and were improperly translated. She also questioned Stepanova’s credibility, alleging personal vendetta or financial motives. The Panel admitted the recordings, citing Swiss law and CAS jurisprudence, which allows unlawfully obtained evidence if the interest in uncovering the truth outweighs privacy concerns. The Panel found Stepanova credible and relied on a key conversation from October 21, 2014, where Poistogova demonstrated knowledge of oxandrolone usage, including dosage and washout periods.
Under the 2012 IAAF Rules, a first-time violation for using banned substances typically results in a two-year suspension unless aggravating or mitigating circumstances apply. The IAAF sought a two- to four-year suspension, disqualification of results from August 2012 onward, and legal costs. The Panel concluded that Poistogova had used oxandrolone in 2014 but found insufficient evidence for other alleged violations, such as EPO use in 2012 or peptides in 2013. The Panel rejected the IAAF’s claim of aggravating circumstances, as it was only satisfied about the oxandrolone use. Consequently, a two-year ineligibility period was imposed, starting from the provisional suspension date of August 24, 2015, and all competitive results from October 21, 2014, to August 24, 2015, were disqualified, including forfeiture of titles, awards, and prize money.
The case highlights the complexities of anti-doping investigations, including evidentiary challenges, procedural disputes, and the role of whistleblowers. It underscores the importance of credible evidence and the balance between procedural fairness and the broader fight against doping. The Panel’s decision reflects a cautious approach, limiting sanctions to violations supported by clear evidence while acknowledging the athlete’s involvement in a broader doping system. The ruling, finalized on April 7, 2017, emphasizes the need for concrete proof in anti-doping cases and the challenges of addressing doping within systemic contexts.