The case revolves around an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the Sports Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, which overturned a prior ruling against athletics coach Lyudmila Fedoriva. The initial decision by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) found Fedoriva guilty of tampering with a doping control process under Article 2.5 of the RUSADA Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) and imposed a four-year ineligibility period. The Russian appeal court annulled this decision, citing insufficient evidence and questioning the impartiality of the doping control officer, Mr. Knyasev. The incident occurred on 7 May 2015, when Russian athlete Dmitry Khasanov was selected for doping control after a race. Doping control officers Knyasev and Steshin testified that Khasanov initially resisted testing and later attempted to substitute himself with another athlete. Fedoriva, Khasanov’s coach, allegedly intervened, insisting the substitute athlete was Khasanov despite clear physical differences. The officers maintained that Fedoriva attempted to persuade them for several minutes before relenting. Khasanov was eventually tested, and his sample tested positive for prohibited substances.
WADA appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the Russian appeal court erred in dismissing the evidence. The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Lars Halgreen, assessed jurisdiction, burden of proof, and the reliability of witness testimonies. The panel confirmed CAS jurisdiction under Article 13.2.3 of the RUSADA ADR, as WADA had the right to appeal decisions from the national appeal body. The standard of proof required WADA to establish the violation to the panel’s "comfortable satisfaction," given the seriousness of the allegations. The panel found that tampering under Article 2.5 RUSADA ADR includes any conduct subverting the doping control process, such as attempting to substitute an athlete for testing. The testimonies of Knyasev and Steshin were deemed credible, with no evidence of bias or partiality. The panel concluded that Fedoriva’s actions constituted intentional tampering, as she persistently tried to convince the officers to test the substitute athlete. The absence of physical evidence did not undermine the reliability of the officers' accounts, which were consistent and detailed.
The CAS panel overturned the Russian appeal court’s decision, reinstating the four-year ineligibility period for Fedoriva. The ruling emphasized the importance of protecting the integrity of doping control processes and upheld the principle that witness testimony, when credible, can sufficiently prove tampering violations. Fedoriva’s defense, which included testimonies from other witnesses, was dismissed as none of them were present during the critical interaction with the doping control officers. The panel found no mitigating circumstances to reduce the sanction, as the violation was intentional. The decision underscored the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations and the consequences of interfering with testing procedures. The sanction took effect from the date of the award, with credit given for any prior suspension served. The case highlights the complexities of anti-doping enforcement and the challenges in proving tampering allegations, while reaffirming the commitment to maintaining the integrity of sports through rigorous legal and procedural standards.