The case revolves around an appeal by the International Skating Union (ISU) against decisions made by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) and the Russian Skating Union (RSU) regarding a doping violation involving Russian short-track speed skater Alexandra Malkova. Malkova tested positive for Tuaminoheptane, a prohibited stimulant, during the Russian National Short Track Championships in March 2016. She admitted to using the substance but claimed it was unintentional, as she had taken the medication Rinofluimucil, prescribed for sinusitis, out-of-competition and stopped two weeks before the event. The legal principles addressed in the case include the distinction between in-competition and out-of-competition use of prohibited substances, with the panel clarifying that consuming a substance prohibited only in-competition out-of-competition does not itself constitute doping. The violation occurs when an athlete competes while the substance or its metabolites remain in their system. Fault levels in such cases generally range from a reprimand to 16 months' suspension, as the athlete typically bears no significant fault, though exceptions apply if the athlete should have recognized the risks.
RUSADA and RSU initially imposed a three-month suspension, finding Malkova at minor fault for negligence. The ISU appealed, arguing for a stricter sanction, but the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel upheld the original decision, noting that Malkova had ceased using the medication well before competition and lacked intent to enhance performance. The panel concluded that the three-month sanction was appropriate and not grossly disproportionate, dismissing the ISU's appeal. However, in a subsequent review, the CAS panel reconsidered the case and imposed a 20-month ineligibility period, starting from April 26, 2016, and disqualified all competitive results Malkova achieved between March 17, 2016, and the start of her suspension. The panel emphasized the importance of proportionality and equal treatment in determining sanctions, rejecting the presumption of a three-month sanction for inadvertent use of Tuaminoheptane in future cases.
The case underscores the nuanced assessment required in doping violations, particularly concerning intent, timing, and the nature of prohibited substances. It highlights the balance between strict anti-doping regulations and fair consideration of individual circumstances, as well as the role of precedent and expert judgment in adjudicating such cases. The final ruling by the CAS panel reinforced the need for athletes to exercise caution and seek expert advice when using medications containing prohibited substances, even for therapeutic purposes. The outcome also reflects broader tensions in anti-doping enforcement between deterrence and proportionality in penalties for unintentional violations. The case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in anti-doping adjudication and the importance of a fact-specific approach to ensure fairness and consistency in sanctions.