The case involves the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) against the All Russia Athletics Federation (ARAF) and athlete Stanislav Emelyanov, decided by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 7 April 2017. The dispute centered on allegations of doping, specifically the use of recombinant erythropoietin (rEPO), by Emelyanov, a Russian race walker. The IAAF filed the case directly with CAS under Rule 38.19 of its 2016 Rules, which allows anti-doping violations to be adjudicated by CAS without prior hearings if all relevant stakeholders consent. Emelyanov had previously been sanctioned in 2012 for an anti-doping violation related to his Athlete Biological Passport (ABP), receiving a two-year suspension. On 2 June 2015, he underwent an out-of-competition urine test in Saransk, Russia, which yielded three diluted samples. While one A-sample tested positive for rEPO, the corresponding B-sample did not confirm this result. The B-sample analysis cited potential reasons for the discrepancy, including low protein content, protease activity, and high urine dilution. Despite the lack of B-sample confirmation, the IAAF pursued charges under Rule 32.2(b) (Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance) and Rule 32.2(e) (Tampering with Doping Control), arguing that the evidence still supported a violation.
The IAAF contended that the extreme dilution of Emelyanov’s urine samples indicated an attempt to mask rEPO use by excessive water consumption. Emelyanov failed to provide a credible explanation for the dilution or the delay in testing, nor did he demonstrate that the violation was unintentional. Under IAAF Rule 40.2, a first-time intentional violation carries a four-year suspension, but as this was Emelyanov’s second offense, the applicable sanction was eight years under Rule 40.8(a)(iii). Additionally, all competitive results from the date of the positive test until the suspension’s commencement were disqualified. The CAS panel found that the body of evidence, including the highly diluted urine and the athlete’s failure to provide satisfactory explanations, sufficiently established the violation despite the B-sample discrepancy. The panel emphasized that factors such as low urine volume, protease degradation, and testing delays did not undermine the A-sample’s reliability.
The hearing revealed that Emelyanov was frequently near the doping control officer (DCO) throughout the day but only submitted to testing in the late afternoon, raising suspicions about avoidance behavior. His urine samples were found to be heavily diluted, with specific gravity levels extremely close to that of water, which experts characterized as an exaggerated dilution likely intended to avoid detection of rEPO. The athlete claimed the dilution resulted from consuming three liters of water during training in hot and humid conditions, but expert testimony contradicted this, stating such extreme dilution would require significantly higher water intake and was physiologically implausible given his activity level. The panel found the athlete's explanations inconsistent and unreliable, concluding that the dilution was a deliberate attempt to mask prohibited substance use.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the IAAF’s charges, imposing an eight-year ineligibility period on Emelyanov and disqualifying his competitive results from the date of the positive test. The decision reinforced the principle that anti-doping violations can be proven even without B-sample confirmation when other compelling evidence exists. The case also highlighted the procedural flexibility under IAAF rules, allowing direct CAS adjudication in certain circumstances. The ruling underscores the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations, particularly for repeat offenders, and the severe consequences of violating these rules.