The case involves Olga Abramova, a Ukrainian biathlete, who appealed a decision by the International Biathlon Union (IBU) regarding an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) due to the presence of meldonium in her sample collected on January 10, 2016. The IBU Anti-Doping Hearing Panel (ADHP) had sanctioned her with a one-year period of ineligibility starting from November 14, 2016, disqualifying her competitive results from January 10 to February 3, 2016, and requiring her to pay EUR 2,000 towards costs. Abramova argued she had taken meldonium under medical prescription for bronchial asthma and dysmetabolic myocardiopathy before it was prohibited on January 1, 2016, and sought to establish no fault or negligence on her part.
The proceedings before the IBU ADHP included multiple submissions and hearings, with the panel suspending the case temporarily to await scientific studies on meldonium excretion. WADA issued preliminary notices on meldonium excretion, but definitive results were delayed. The ADHP eventually resumed proceedings and upheld the provisional suspension. An expert opinion by Professor Thevis was sought to assess the scientific knowledge about meldonium excretion, and the ADHP rendered its decision on November 14, 2016. Abramova appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), requesting an expedited procedure and provisional measures, which were denied due to lack of mutual agreement between the parties.
The CAS proceedings involved the filing of an appeal brief, objections from the IBU, and further submissions. The key legal issue was whether Abramova could establish no fault or negligence under Article 10.4 of the WADA Code, which would eliminate her sanction. The CAS panel considered factors such as the state of scientific knowledge about meldonium excretion before 2016 and her medical justification for its use. Abramova argued that WADA had not adequately studied meldonium's excretion time before its inclusion in the Prohibited List, making it unclear how long the substance would remain in an athlete's system. She highlighted that her meldonium concentration (7.3 µg/ml) only slightly exceeded WADA's threshold, attributing this to her long-term use and liver dysfunction.
The IBU countered that the presence of meldonium in Abramova's sample after January 1, 2016, constituted an ADRV under its rules, emphasizing that athletes had been warned in advance to discontinue use. They argued Abramova was negligent for continuing meldonium use after being notified of its prohibition, stopping only in December 2015. The IBU also questioned the medical necessity of her meldonium use, suggesting it was likely for performance enhancement.
The CAS panel evaluated whether Abramova exercised utmost caution in using meldonium and whether she could reasonably have known or suspected its presence in her system after its prohibition. The panel noted the limited scientific knowledge about meldonium excretion before 2016 and accepted Abramova's medical justification for its use. They concluded she could not reasonably have known meldonium would remain detectable post-ban, given the lack of clear guidance.
Ultimately, the CAS panel found Abramova had established no fault or negligence, lifting her one-year suspension and reinstating her results except for those between January 10 and February 3, 2016. The panel canceled her obligation to pay the EUR 2,000 contribution and ruled this violation would not count as a prior offense in future cases. The decision underscores the challenges in doping cases involving substances with uncertain excretion timelines and the importance of considering medical necessity and scientific uncertainty in anti-doping regulations.