The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on October 17, 2017, in the case between the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the UAE Athletics Federation and athlete Betlhem Desalegn. The case revolved around allegations of blood doping based on abnormalities detected in Desalegn’s Athlete Biological Passport (ABP). The IAAF argued that her ABP profile indicated the use of recombinant human erythropoietin (rEPO), a prohibited substance, and sought a four-year ban, citing aggravating circumstances. The UAE Athletics Federation had previously imposed a 15-month ban, which the IAAF deemed insufficient.
The CAS panel, composed of three arbitrators, examined the evidence, including expert testimonies, and concluded that Desalegn’s abnormal blood values were consistent with blood doping, likely involving rEPO or blood transfusions. The panel dismissed her explanations, such as medical treatments and high-altitude training, as scientifically unfounded. It ruled that the violation was intentional, as such methods require deliberate administration, and upheld the standard two-year ineligibility period under IAAF rules. The panel found insufficient evidence to prove aggravating circumstances, such as multiple violations or a doping scheme, which would have justified a longer ban.
Regarding the disqualification of competitive results, the panel applied Rule 40.8 of the IAAF Rules, which mandates disqualification from the date of the violation until the start of the ineligibility period. However, it limited the disqualification to results between March 6, 2014, and August 13, 2015, citing fairness, as only one sample showed clear abnormalities. The panel rejected arguments about lasting performance-enhancing effects of blood doping, emphasizing that such considerations are not factored into sanctions under the World Anti-Doping Code.
The CAS upheld the IAAF’s appeal, setting aside the UAE Federation’s decision, and imposed a two-year ban retroactive to Desalegn’s provisional suspension date, with credit for time already served. The ruling reinforced the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations while ensuring sanctions were proportionate and fair. The case highlighted the complexities of proving doping violations through ABP data and the importance of expert analysis in such disputes. The decision underscored the balance between deterring doping and maintaining fairness in competitive sports.