The case involves a doping dispute between the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and Russian athlete Anna Pyatykh, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The allegations stemmed from the retesting of Pyatykh's sample from the 2007 IAAF World Championships, which initially tested negative but later revealed prohibited substances, including oxandrolone, methenolone, mesterolone, and dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (DHCMT), upon reanalysis in 2016. The legal framework applied the principle of tempus regit actum, meaning procedural matters followed the rules in force at the time of the procedural act, while substantive aspects adhered to the rules applicable at the time of the alleged violation. The IAAF argued Pyatykh violated anti-doping rules under the 2007 and 2013 IAAF Rules, specifically Rule 32.2(a) (presence of a prohibited substance) and Rule 32.2(b) (use or attempted use of a prohibited substance or method). The case also considered the statute of limitations, with the 2015 WADA Code extending the limitation period to 10 years for violations occurring before its enforcement, provided the previous 8-year limit had not expired.
Pyatykh contested the allegations, attributing the positive test to contaminated supplements, but the panel found her explanation insufficient. The case also examined the "Washout Allegations," linked to systemic doping practices in Russia, as revealed by investigations led by Prof. Richard H. McLaren. These allegations involved a state-backed doping system where athletes were secretly tested before major events to ensure they passed official controls. Evidence from the Washout Schedule indicated Pyatykh was part of this scheme, with unofficial tests showing the use of prohibited substances before the 2013 IAAF World Championships. Pyatykh denied these claims, asserting compliance with official testing protocols.
The Sole Arbitrator, Prof. Jens Evald, confirmed the presence of DHCMT in Pyatykh's 2007 sample, establishing a violation under Rule 32.2(a). For the 2013 allegations, the arbitrator relied on the McLaren Report and the Washout Schedule, concluding Pyatykh violated Rule 32.2(b) by using prohibited substances. The arbitrator emphasized the reliability of evidence, even if it did not fully comply with standard testing protocols, provided it was credible. The IAAF sought a four-year ineligibility period, citing aggravating factors like Pyatykh's involvement in a state-sponsored doping scheme and the use of multiple prohibited substances. The arbitrator agreed, imposing a four-year ban starting from December 15, 2016, and disqualifying Pyatykh's results from August 31, 2007, and from July 6, 2013, to December 15, 2016. However, results between September 1, 2007, and July 5, 2013, were not disqualified due to lack of evidence of doping during this period.
The ruling underscored the importance of proportionality and fairness in sanctions, ensuring penalties were appropriate to the violations without being excessive. The decision aimed to correct unfair advantages gained through doping while maintaining competitive integrity. The case highlighted the challenges of retrospective doping tests and the evolving legal landscape in anti-doping enforcement, balancing strict liability with athletes' rights to fair proceedings. The arbitrator's approach reflected a careful consideration of evidence, procedural fairness, and the broader implications of systemic doping in sports.