The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding Russian race walker Petr Trofimov, who was accused of blood doping by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). The allegations were based on abnormalities detected in his Athlete Biological Passport (ABP), a system introduced in 2009 to monitor biological indicators for signs of doping. Due to the suspension of the Russian Athletics Federation (ARAF), the case was referred directly to CAS under Rule 38.3 of the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules (ADR), bypassing the usual national federation hearing process. The proceedings followed appeal arbitration procedures without time limits for appeal, governed substantively by the 2012 IAAF Rules, as the alleged violations occurred between 2009 and 2013.
The ABP analysis identified statistical outliers in Trofimov’s blood samples, particularly in 2009 and 2013, suggesting the use of prohibited substances like erythropoietic stimulants or blood transfusions. Expert panels concluded these abnormalities were highly unlikely to result from natural causes, rejecting Trofimov’s explanations, such as kidney issues and high-altitude training, as insufficient. The IAAF argued the ABP results provided indirect but statistically confident evidence of doping, meeting the "comfortable satisfaction" standard required under Rule 32.2(b) of the IAAF Rules. Trofimov did not formally contest the allegations, though he informally attributed the anomalies to non-doping factors.
Under the 2012 IAAF Rules, the standard sanction for a doping violation was a two-year ban, but Rule 40.6 allowed for a four-year ban in cases with aggravating circumstances, such as repeated violations. The IAAF sought the higher sanction, citing multiple instances of doping. The Sole Arbitrator, however, emphasized fairness and proportionality, noting only two of eighteen samples showed abnormalities. Consequently, disqualifying all results from the entire sampling period was deemed inappropriate. The arbitrator imposed a four-year ineligibility period starting from Trofimov’s provisional suspension date (3 November 2016) and disqualified his competitive results from 13 August 2009 to 18 May 2013, forfeiting associated titles, medals, and prizes.
The case highlights the complexities of ABP-based doping cases, where indirect evidence is used to establish violations, and the procedural adjustments required when national federations are suspended. The decision balanced strict liability principles with fairness, ensuring sanctions were proportionate to the evidence. The arbitrator’s ruling reflected a nuanced approach, considering both the severity of violations and equitable outcomes, aligning with prior CAS jurisprudence. The outcome underscores the rigorous procedures in anti-doping enforcement and the challenges athletes face in contesting ABP findings. The Sole Arbitrator affirmed CAS’s jurisdiction, upheld the violation, and dismissed other motions, concluding the case with a focus on fairness and proportionality.