The case between Elena Dorofeyeva and the International Tennis Federation (ITF) before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) revolved around whether Dorofeyeva, a sports medicine specialist, was bound by the ITF's anti-doping regulations. The dispute arose after tennis player Kateryna Kozlova tested positive for the prohibited substance DMBA, found in a supplement called Red Rum. The ITF alleged Dorofeyeva had advised Kozlova to take this supplement, violating anti-doping rules, while Dorofeyeva contested the ITF's jurisdiction, arguing she had never agreed to its regulations.
The central legal issue was whether Dorofeyeva, by assisting Kozlova, had implicitly accepted the ITF's anti-doping rules. The CAS panel, led by Prof. Ulrich Haas, ruled that for such regulations to apply, explicit or implicit agreement was necessary. While participation in a sport typically implies agreement, Dorofeyeva, as a medical specialist, had not entered the ITF's "sphere of control" merely by advising an athlete. The World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) does not classify assisting an athlete as "participation in sport," and Dorofeyeva's contractual relationship with Kozlova did not extend to the ITF.
The ITF had initially charged Dorofeyeva under Article 2.8 of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP) for administering a prohibited substance, imposing a four-year ineligibility period. Dorofeyeva appealed to CAS, disputing the ITF's jurisdiction and alleging procedural unfairness, fabricated evidence, and violations of her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ITF countered that Dorofeyeva qualified as a Player Support Person (PSP), automatically bound by TADP rules, regardless of formal employment contracts under Ukrainian law.
The CAS Sole Arbitrator found that Dorofeyeva had not explicitly or implicitly agreed to the ITF's anti-doping rules. The arbitrator rejected the ITF's argument that being a sports physician automatically bound her to all anti-doping rules worldwide, emphasizing the need for clear contractual consent. The ruling highlighted that jurisdiction must be based on consent, either explicit or through conduct demonstrating implied acceptance, neither of which was present here. Consequently, the ITF lacked jurisdiction over Dorofeyeva, and the appealed decision was declared null and void.
Dorofeyeva's claims for damages, including reputational harm and violations of her human rights, were dismissed. The arbitrator found no causal link between the ITF's decision and the alleged damages, attributing any reputational harm to Dorofeyeva's own actions. Her claims under Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR were also dismissed, as she failed to demonstrate how the ITF, a non-state entity, was bound by these provisions.
The case underscores the importance of explicit agreement in applying sports regulations to individuals outside a federation's direct control and highlights the limits of anti-doping authorities' jurisdiction over support personnel. It also reaffirms the principle that contractual intent and jurisdiction must be clearly established for disciplinary actions to be enforceable. The ruling clarified that mere assistance to an athlete does not automatically subject a third party to anti-doping rules without their consent.