The case involves Russian athlete Maksim Dyldin, who was accused of evading a doping control test on May 22, 2015, at the Yunost Sports Complex in Adler, Russia. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) brought the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) after the Russian Athletics Federation (ARAF) and the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) were suspended due to widespread doping violations. The IAAF alleged that Dyldin deliberately avoided the test by refusing to sign the doping control form, providing a false name, and fleeing the scene. The doping control officer (DCO), Elena Gorodilova-Shamsutdinova, provided detailed testimony supported by photographs and witness statements, including from another athlete, Khiutte, who confirmed Dyldin’s identity and evasion.
Dyldin claimed he was unaware of the test and acted under stress due to personal issues, but his explanations were inconsistent and unsupported by evidence. The CAS Sole Arbitrator found Dyldin’s behavior—such as fleeing, giving a false name, and his experience with doping procedures—demonstrated intent to evade the test. Under IAAF rules, evading sample collection carries a standard four-year ineligibility period, which can be reduced to two years if the violation is proven unintentional. The arbitrator ruled Dyldin failed to justify his actions and upheld the four-year sanction, effective from the date of the award, with no credit for his provisional suspension due to evidence he violated it by attending a training camp in Portugal.
The case highlighted systemic issues in Russian athletics, including coercion by coaches like Zukhra Vereshchagina, who allegedly instructed athletes to evade tests and provided prohibited substances. Khiutte’s testimony revealed she was pressured to flee testing and later admitted to taking substances given by her coach. The arbitrator emphasized the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, holding athletes accountable regardless of intent unless proven otherwise. The ruling reinforced the importance of compliance with doping control procedures and the consequences of evasion, underscoring the challenges in enforcing anti-doping measures in environments of non-cooperation. The final decision dismissed all other claims and imposed the full four-year ineligibility period on Dyldin.