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 Svetlana Vasilyeva. The dispute centered on allegations of blood doping based on abnormalities in Vasilyeva's Athlete Biological Passport (ABP). The IAAF charged her with violating Rule 32.2(b) of the IAAF Rules, which prohibits the use or attempted use of prohibited substances or methods. The evidence was derived from an analysis of 19 blood samples collected between 2011 and 2016, with one sample deemed invalid. An expert panel reviewed the ABP data and concluded that the abnormalities were highly indicative of prohibited substances or methods, ruling out natural causes such as high-altitude training, illnesses, or menstruation, which Vasilyeva had cited as explanations.
Due to RUSAF's suspension by the IAAF, the case was brought directly to CAS under IAAF Rule 38.3, bypassing the federation's usual hearing process. The proceedings followed CAS appeal arbitration procedures, with no time limits for appeal. The applicable law was determined by the principle of tempus regit actum, meaning procedural matters were governed by the rules in force at the time of the procedural act, while substantive aspects followed the anti-doping regulations in effect during the alleged violations (2012-2013 IAAF Rules). The sanctioning framework allowed for a standard two-year ineligibility period, with aggravating circumstances permitting an increase up to four years. The panel found that Vasilyeva's career was built on systematic blood doping over five years, justifying the maximum four-year ineligibility.
Regarding the disqualification of results, the panel acknowledged a fairness exception under Rule 40.8 of the 2012-2013 IAAF Rules, which allowed results from periods without evidence of doping to stand. However, the panel emphasized that such exceptions should be applied cautiously, ensuring only results tainted by doping were disqualified. Vasilyeva's competitive results from October 18, 2011, to July 14, 2013, and from May 24, 2016, to December 12, 2016, were annulled, leading to forfeiture of titles, awards, medals, and prize money. The ruling underscored the seriousness of blood doping, its repetitive and sophisticated nature, and the need for stringent sanctions to uphold the integrity of the sport.
The case highlights the challenges of enforcing anti-doping regulations when athletes fail to engage in the adjudication process, as Vasilyeva and RUSAF did not contest the charges or participate substantively in the proceedings. The decision reinforced CAS's role in adjudicating doping cases where national federations are unable to act, ensuring consistent application of anti-doping regulations. The ruling also demonstrated the effectiveness of the ABP in detecting long-term doping patterns and the importance of expert analysis in corroborating such violations. The outcome serves as a reminder of the consequences of systematic doping and the commitment of sports governing bodies to maintain fair competition.