The case involves Asli Çakir Alptekin, a middle-distance runner and whistleblower, who appealed a decision by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) regarding the suspension of her eligibility period due to doping violations. Initially banned for eight years in 2013, Alptekin's suspension was reduced to four years under a Substantial Assistance Agreement with WADA, allowing her to return to competition in January 2017. This agreement permitted further suspension of her ineligibility if her assistance proved more valuable than anticipated, provided WADA acted reasonably and in good faith. Alptekin provided significant evidence exposing corruption within the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), including an extortion scheme involving the sons of former IAAF president Lamine Diack. Her testimony aided investigations by WADA, the IAAF Ethics Board, and French authorities. In April 2016, she submitted additional witness statements from her entourage, offering direct evidence of extortion attempts, and requested a further six-month suspension to potentially compete in the 2016 Rio Olympics.
WADA denied her request, citing her prior serious doping violations and the proximity of the Olympics. Alptekin appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing WADA acted unreasonably. The CAS panel ruled that WADA’s decision was neither unreasonable nor in bad faith, emphasizing that WADA had discretion under the agreement and that Alptekin’s prior violations justified the refusal. The panel affirmed that CAS could only overturn WADA’s decision if it was proven to be unreasonable or made in bad faith, which was not the case here. The jurisdictional and admissibility issues were also addressed, with the panel concluding that CAS had jurisdiction and that the appeal was filed within the required time frame, despite WADA's objections.
The case highlights the complexities of anti-doping regulations and the challenges of evaluating substantial assistance. Alptekin argued that WADA’s refusal undermined the credibility of the Substantial Assistance system and discouraged whistleblowers, while WADA maintained that her prior violations and the lack of new, meaningful evidence disqualified her from further leniency. The panel ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding WADA’s decision and rejecting all further claims. The ruling underscores the balance between incentivizing whistleblowing and enforcing anti-doping sanctions, particularly for athletes with prior violations, while clarifying the limited scope of judicial review in such discretionary decisions by WADA. The decision maintains the integrity of anti-doping regulations while acknowledging the complexities of cooperation agreements.