The case involves Yulia Naumova, a Russian military pentathlon athlete, who appealed a decision by the International Military Sports Council (CISM) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) after testing positive for Bromantan, a prohibited substance, during the 63rd World Military Pentathlon Championship in August 2016. The CISM Discipline Commission imposed a four-year ineligibility period, starting from the date of the first sample collection, and required the return of her gold medals. Naumova argued that the substance entered her system inadvertently through a medication called Ladasten, which she claimed to have taken in April 2016 to boost her immunity during a flu epidemic. She asserted that she did not take the drug during the competition period and had no access to other medications due to shortages. However, the CISM Discipline Commission found her explanation insufficient, as she failed to provide concrete evidence linking the medication to the presence of Bromantan. The standard of proof required her to demonstrate the origin of the substance on a balance of probabilities, meaning she needed to show it was more likely than not that the substance came from the medication. Without such evidence, the violation was deemed intentional.
Naumova appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), but the proceedings were conducted based on written submissions, as neither party requested a hearing. The CAS panel reviewed the case and upheld the CISM decision, emphasizing that an athlete must provide actual evidence, not just speculation, to establish the source of a prohibited substance. The panel noted that Naumova’s explanation lacked sufficient proof, including the absence of a prescription for Ladasten, inconsistencies in her claims about the substance's effects, and her failure to disclose the medication on her doping control form. Expert testimony also contradicted her assertion that Bromantan could remain in her system for months, as the detected levels indicated recent use. Additionally, the panel found no evidence of a flu epidemic in her area at the time she claimed to have taken the medication.
The CAS panel concluded that Naumova did not meet her burden of proof and confirmed the anti-doping rule violation as intentional. The four-year suspension and disqualification of her results were upheld, reinforcing the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations. The ruling underscores the high evidentiary burden on athletes to demonstrate unintentional violations and the importance of credible evidence in contesting doping allegations. The decision also highlights the consequences of failing to provide substantiated explanations for positive test results, maintaining the integrity of anti-doping measures in sports. The CAS dismissed Naumova’s appeal, confirming the original sanctions and emphasizing the need for athletes to adhere strictly to anti-doping rules.