The case involves Maria Farnosova, a Russian middle-distance runner, who appealed against sanctions imposed by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the All Russia Athletics Federation (ARAF) for alleged anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs). The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued its ruling on 27 July 2018, addressing key legal and procedural aspects of the case. The allegations were based on abnormalities in Farnosova’s Athlete Biological Passport (ABP), which monitors blood values over time to detect potential doping indirectly, and intelligence provided by whistleblower Yuliya Stepanova, who recorded conversations implicating Farnosova and her coach in systematic doping practices.
The CAS panel confirmed that procedural matters are governed by the regulations in force at the time of the procedural act, while substantive aspects of an alleged ADRV are determined by the rules applicable at the time of the violation. The burden of proof rested on the IAAF, which had to establish the violation to the "comfortable satisfaction" of the adjudicating body, a standard higher than a balance of probability but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. The ABP was deemed reliable evidence if a two-step approach was followed: experts must interpret deviations in the ABP by examining possible explanations for abnormal values, and these deviations must be contextualized. The panel emphasized the athlete’s duty to cooperate by providing detailed alternative explanations for abnormal blood values, though the burden of proof ultimately remained with the IAAF.
Farnosova’s ABP data, consisting of 28 blood samples collected between 2009 and 2015, showed irregularities in hemoglobin and reticulocyte levels, suggesting potential blood manipulation through prohibited substances or methods like erythropoietin (EPO) or blood transfusions. The ABP Expert Panel concluded these abnormalities were highly unlikely to result from natural causes or environmental factors. Additional evidence came from Stepanova’s recordings, where Farnosova and her coach discussed the use of banned substances, including EPO, human growth hormone, and oxandrolone, and strategies to evade detection. The panel found these recordings credible and consistent with the ABP findings.
Farnosova contested the allegations, attributing her abnormal blood values to factors like high-altitude training, nutritional supplements, genetic conditions, and food poisoning. However, the panel dismissed these explanations, noting they were either unsupported by scientific evidence or already accounted for in the ABP’s statistical models. The panel concluded that blood manipulation was the only plausible explanation for the irregularities, particularly given the correlation between her competitive schedule and blood value variances.
The panel found Farnosova guilty of multiple ADRVs, including the use of prohibited substances and participation in a doping scheme. Aggravating factors, such as the prolonged use of multiple banned substances and her role in undermining the integrity of athletics, justified a four-year ban. The period of ineligibility began on her provisional suspension date, 24 August 2015, with credit for time already served. Additionally, all her competitive results between 26 July 2010 and 26 August 2013 were disqualified to restore fairness in the competitions she had distorted.
The CAS panel upheld the sanctions, emphasizing the severity of Farnosova’s violations and their impact on the sport. The decision highlighted the importance of the ABP program and corroborating evidence in proving doping violations, as well as the athlete’s obligation to cooperate in investigations. The ruling underscored the need for stringent penalties to deter doping and protect the integrity of athletics. The panel dismissed Farnosova’s appeal, affirming the original decision in its entirety.