The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding allegations of blood doping against Russian race-walker Andrey Krivov, based on irregularities detected in his Athlete Biological Passport (ABP). The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) charged Krivov with violating Rule 32.2(b) of its regulations, which prohibits the use of prohibited methods, specifically blood doping, between May 2011 and October 2013. Due to the suspension of the All Russia Athletics Federation (ARAF), the IAAF directly referred the case to a CAS Sole Arbitrator, bypassing ARAF’s usual hearing process. The arbitrator applied the principle of tempus regit actum, meaning procedural matters were governed by regulations in force at the time of the procedural act, while substantive issues followed the rules in effect at the time of the alleged violation.
The IAAF relied on longitudinal profiling from Krivov’s ABP, which tracks blood parameters such as hemoglobin (HGB) and reticulocyte percentage (RET%) to detect anomalies indicative of blood doping. The ABP data showed significant fluctuations in Krivov’s blood values, particularly elevated HGB levels before competitions, suggesting manipulation. An expert panel unanimously concluded these irregularities were consistent with blood doping. Krivov attempted to explain the abnormalities by citing factors like training camps, illnesses, or hypoxic tents, but the panel dismissed these claims, stating they could not account for the observed patterns. The panel reaffirmed their conclusion that the abnormalities were highly likely due to blood manipulation, with no plausible physiological or environmental justification.
Given the prolonged nature of the violations—spanning nearly five years—and evidence of a systematic doping scheme, the arbitrator found aggravating circumstances under IAAF Rule 40.6, justifying an increased suspension beyond the standard two-year ban. The IAAF sought a four-year ineligibility period, citing aggravating circumstances such as prolonged and deliberate doping, potential performance-enhancing effects, and Krivov’s lack of admission or cooperation. The Sole Arbitrator imposed a three-year period of ineligibility, starting from the date of Krivov’s provisional suspension on 12 April 2016.
The decision also addressed the disqualification of Krivov’s competitive results. While the IAAF initially proposed disqualifying all results from May 2011 to April 2016, the arbitrator limited this to the period from 20 May 2011 to 6 July 2013, as there was no clear evidence of continued doping beyond that date. This adjustment was made to ensure fairness, considering the lack of proof of prolonged violations and procedural delays. The final ruling upheld the IAAF’s request, imposing a three-year ineligibility period and disqualifying Krivov’s results during the specified timeframe, including forfeiture of titles, awards, medals, and prizes. The case underscores the reliability of ABP data in anti-doping enforcement and the importance of proportionality in sanctions.