The case involves Tetiana Gamera, a Ukrainian long-distance runner, who appealed against decisions by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the Ukrainian Athletic Federation (UAF) regarding an alleged anti-doping rule violation based on her Athlete Biological Passport (ABP). The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) served as the arbitral body, with Prof. Ulrich Haas as the sole arbitrator. The dispute centered on whether CAS had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a reconsideration decision by the UAF. The IAAF had investigated Gamera's blood test results from 2011 to 2015, which showed abnormalities with a 99.9% probability of being caused by prohibited substances or methods. An expert panel concluded her profile was unlikely to result from normal physiological conditions.
The arbitrator ruled that Article 42.3 of the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) permits appeals to CAS only against first-instance national decisions, not reconsideration decisions. A reconsideration request is an extrajudicial remedy, allowing a federation to revisit its decision at its discretion, lacking procedural constraints and full access to justice. Consequently, CAS lacks jurisdiction to review reconsideration decisions, as they resemble non-reviewable field-of-play decisions. The arbitrator emphasized that a decision must intend to affect the legal situation of the addressee, and a reconsideration decision, being discretionary, does not create enforceable rights for the athlete.
Gamera was suspended for four years by the UAF in November 2015, disqualifying her results from August 2011. She learned of the decision through media reports and later retrieved the official notification from her email. She denied the allegations but claimed financial constraints prevented her from contesting the decision legally. In February 2016, she filed a lawsuit against the UAF in a Kyiv court, challenging procedural grounds, but the court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The UAF later corrected her name in the decision. Gamera then requested a review under UAF statutes, arguing she was not properly notified or given a chance to defend herself. The UAF reconsidered her case in June 2016 but upheld its original decision in August 2016.
Gamera filed an appeal with CAS in October 2016, challenging both the original UAF decision and its confirmation. The IAAF contested CAS jurisdiction and the appeal's admissibility, arguing it was filed too late—nearly eleven months after the UAF decision. The arbitrator bifurcated the procedure to address jurisdictional and admissibility issues first. The UAF maintained it had taken all necessary steps to notify Gamera, including emails and attempts to contact her coach. Gamera argued the original decision was null and void due to procedural flaws, including lack of proper notification and her right to a fair hearing.
The arbitrator found that Gamera had access to the UAF decision by November 2015, meaning the 45-day appeal deadline under IAAF rules had expired by October 2016. Even if the decision lacked full reasoning, the arbitrator ruled Gamera was estopped from claiming she did not receive it, as she had a reasonable opportunity to take note of it. The principle of estoppel applied because she failed to act diligently. The arbitrator concluded the appeal was inadmissible due to the missed deadline, emphasizing procedural timelines and legal certainty.
The case highlights the distinction between formal appeals and discretionary reconsideration requests in anti-doping proceedings. It underscores the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines and the limited judicial review of reconsideration decisions. The arbitrator dismissed Gamera's appeal, reinforcing that CAS jurisdiction is confined to legally reviewable decisions and that athletes must act promptly to preserve their rights. The outcome illustrates the complexities of anti-doping disputes and the procedural safeguards athletes must navigate to challenge sanctions.