The case involves a complex legal dispute between the Belarus Canoe Association (BCA) and members of the Belarusian Senior Men’s Canoe and Kayak team against the International Canoe Federation (ICF), centered on doping allegations and subsequent sanctions. The dispute arose after meldonium, a substance added to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List on 1 January 2016, was detected in samples from five Belarusian athletes during an out-of-competition test in France. The athletes claimed they had used meldonium before its prohibition, and WADA later issued guidance stating that for samples with concentrations below 1000 ng/ml taken after 1 March 2016, a no-fault finding could be made if the substance was ingested before the ban. The Belarusian Anti-Doping Agency lifted provisional suspensions pending further scientific studies, but the ICF imposed a one-year suspension on the team, coaches, and medical staff, excluding them from the 2016 Olympics.
The BCA contested the sanctions, arguing that the ICF Executive Committee lacked authority under its statutes and anti-doping rules to impose such measures. They emphasized that canoe and kayak are not team sports under the ICF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) or WADA Code, making collective sanctions inappropriate. The BCA also highlighted procedural violations, including insufficient evidence, lack of due process, and the absence of formal decisions on individual violations. The case was appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which scrutinized the ICF's decision under Article 12.3 of the ICF ADR, which allows disciplinary action for multiple violations within a 12-month period. The CAS panel found the ICF's decision legally flawed, noting that the conditions for applying Article 12.3 were not met due to insufficient evidence and procedural shortcomings.
The panel also addressed the possession of meldonium by a coach, Henadzi Halitski, who provided evidence of medical prescriptions dating back to 2012. The panel ruled that neither the WADA Code nor the ICF ADR required a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for coaches, and if the substance was for personal medical use, no violation was established. Similarly, the panel dismissed allegations regarding other medications and transfusion equipment found during a raid, accepting the team doctor's explanation that these were for legitimate medical purposes. The panel criticized the ICF for introducing new legal arguments during the CAS hearing that were not part of the original decision, violating the principle of legality.
Ultimately, the CAS panel overturned the ICF's decision, ruling it lacked a proper legal basis and procedural fairness. The panel emphasized the importance of adhering to established anti-doping protocols, ensuring judicial oversight, and respecting the rights of athletes and affiliated personnel. The decision underscored the complexities of enforcing anti-doping regulations, particularly with newly prohibited substances, and highlighted the need for robust evidence and procedural integrity in such cases. The panel's ruling set aside the appealed decision, lifting all sanctions and dismissing further motions, thereby upholding the appellants' claims.