The case involves Arsan Arashov, a professional tennis player from Kazakhstan, who was charged with an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) by the International Tennis Federation (ITF) after testing positive for Meldonium, a prohibited substance, during the ITF F21 Futures Tournament in Gandia, Spain, in July 2016. The ITF issued a Notice of Charge in September 2016, citing strict liability under the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP), which holds athletes responsible for prohibited substances in their samples regardless of intent or knowledge. Arashov argued he unknowingly ingested Meldonium, prescribed by a doctor for health issues, and alleged procedural departures in the doping control process. However, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel upheld the strict liability principle, stating that the presence of a prohibited substance alone constitutes an ADRV unless the athlete proves a departure from mandatory procedures could have caused the positive result.
Arashov, a minor at the time, claimed procedural breaches, such as inadequate notification of his rights, lack of an adult representative during sample collection, and potential contamination of sample containers or drinking water. The panel dismissed these arguments, finding no credible evidence linking the alleged breaches to the adverse finding. Expert testimony confirmed the sample collection kits were clean and tamper-proof, and Meldonium is not an environmental contaminant but a medication requiring deliberate ingestion. The panel noted Arashov’s youth and inexperience but emphasized his awareness of anti-doping rules, rejecting his claim of unintentional ingestion due to insufficient evidence.
The original tribunal reduced Arashov’s sanction from four years to two, citing proportionality given his age and naivety. The CAS panel upheld this decision, acknowledging the WADC’s strict framework but recognizing rare cases where proportionality may apply. The panel found no grounds for further reduction, as Arashov failed to demonstrate no significant fault or negligence. The case underscores the challenges athletes face in contesting doping violations under strict liability, particularly when unable to identify the source of the prohibited substance. It also highlights the balance between enforcing anti-doping regulations and considering individual circumstances, though such considerations remain exceptional. The CAS ultimately dismissed Arashov’s appeal, affirming the two-year ban and disqualification of his results from the July 2016 tournament while allowing him to retain ranking points from subsequent competitions. The decision reinforces the stringent nature of anti-doping rules and the high burden of proof on athletes to rebut violations.