The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) between the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the Russian Athletics Federation (RUSAF) along with athlete Ivan Shablyuyev. The dispute arose from Shablyuyev's positive doping test for GHRP-6, a prohibited substance, during a competition in July 2016. The IAAF referred the matter directly to CAS under Rule 38.3 of its Competition Rules, as RUSAF was suspended and unable to conduct a hearing within the required timeframe. Shablyuyev, a 400-meter hurdler, tested positive for metabolites of GHRP-6, a banned substance under the World Anti-Doping Agency's prohibited list. He waived his right to analyze the B-sample and initially claimed he had no explanation for the positive result, later suggesting inadvertent ingestion through supplements but failing to provide concrete evidence. The IAAF provisionally suspended him when he did not submit a formal explanation within the extended deadline.
The case proceeded to CAS, where the IAAF sought a ruling on the anti-doping violation. Despite multiple communications, neither RUSAF nor Shablyuyev responded to the proceedings. The sole arbitrator, Markus Manninen, emphasized that under anti-doping rules, an athlete must prove how a prohibited substance entered their system to establish lack of intent. Since Shablyuyev failed to provide any substantive defense or evidence, the arbitrator upheld the IAAF's position, confirming the anti-doping rule violation. The case underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances found in their system, regardless of intent. The absence of a credible explanation or evidence led to the confirmation of the violation and the imposition of sanctions.
The IAAF argued that the presence of GHRP-6 in Shablyuyev's A-sample, coupled with his waiver of B-sample analysis, established the violation under Rule 32.2(a) of the IAAF Rules. The IAAF sought a four-year ineligibility period, citing the intentional nature of the violation under Rule 40.2, and requested disqualification of all competitive results from July 19, 2016, to September 1, 2016. The arbitrator noted that Shablyuyev's claim of contaminated supplements lacked evidence, as he did not specify the supplement or demonstrate how the substance entered his system. Additionally, he had not declared any supplements in his doping control form. The violation was deemed intentional, resulting in a four-year ineligibility period starting from the date of his provisional suspension.
The ruling also addressed the disqualification of Shablyuyev's results under IAAF Rule 40.9, requiring forfeiture of titles, awards, medals, and prize money earned during the specified period. The arbitrator found no grounds for fairness to mitigate the disqualification, given the intentional nature of the violation and the lack of arguments from RUSAF or the athlete. The decision reinforces the importance of athletes ensuring the integrity of the substances they consume and the necessity of robust evidence to contest doping allegations. The case highlights the procedural steps in anti-doping disputes and the consequences of non-participation by respondents in arbitration proceedings. The final decision upholds the IAAF's request, confirms the violation, imposes the four-year ineligibility, disqualifies the specified results, and dismisses all other motions, aiming to maintain fairness and integrity in athletics.