The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding an alleged anti-doping rule violation by Russian middle-distance runner Anastasiya Bazdyreva. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) brought the case against Bazdyreva and the All-Russia Athletics Federation (ARAF), based on evidence obtained through covert recordings made by whistleblower Yuliya Stepanova. The key issue was the admissibility of these recordings and whether they substantiated the doping allegations. The arbitration panel, led by sole arbitrator Hans Nater, examined the legal framework under Swiss law and IAAF rules, concluding that illegally obtained evidence could be admissible if the interest in uncovering the truth outweighed the infringement of rights. Given the systemic doping culture in Russian athletics, the panel found the truth-seeking interest prevailed, especially since Bazdyreva herself referenced the recordings in her defense.
The IAAF charged Bazdyreva with violating Rule 32.2(b) for using prohibited substances, primarily relying on Stepanova’s witness statement and covert recordings where Bazdyreva allegedly admitted using Trenbolone and Oxandrolone. Stepanova shared these recordings with a German journalist, leading to a documentary exposing Russian doping practices. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) subsequently confirmed Bazdyreva’s doping in its 2015 report. Bazdyreva denied the charges, arguing the recordings were distorted and that she had never tested positive. She also questioned the legality of using covert evidence, suggesting it violated principles of good faith and procedural rights. However, the arbitrator found the recordings credible and admissible, emphasizing the public interest in combating doping outweighed Bazdyreva’s objections.
The arbitrator concluded that Bazdyreva’s admissions in the recordings, combined with her familiarity with prohibited substances, established a violation of IAAF rules. The standard penalty for a first violation was a two-year ineligibility period, which the arbitrator imposed, effective from August 24, 2015. The IAAF sought an increased sanction, citing aggravating factors such as Bazdyreva’s knowledge of doping practices and her association with a coach known to provide prohibited substances. However, the arbitrator found insufficient proof of repeated use or a broader doping scheme to justify a longer suspension. The ruling also disqualified all of Bazdyreva’s competitive results from April 23, 2014, until her provisional suspension, including the forfeiture of titles, awards, medals, and prize money. The decision underscores the challenges of proving doping violations through indirect evidence and the balance between procedural fairness and the need to combat systemic doping in sports. The case highlights the role of whistleblowers and the admissibility of covert evidence in anti-doping investigations, setting a precedent for future cases.