The case involves Russian long jumper Vasiliy Kopeykin, who was found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) after testing positive for trimetazidine, a prohibited substance, during an out-of-competition test in December 2016. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) brought the case against Kopeykin and the Russian Athletic Federation (RUSAF), as the substance was detected in both his A and B samples, leading to a provisional suspension. Kopeykin claimed the positive result could have been due to his use of Migsis, a medication containing lomerizine, which he argued might metabolize into trimetazidine. However, the Stockholm Laboratory refuted this claim, stating no traces of lomerizine or its metabolites were found in his samples, confirming the presence of trimetazidine alone.
Under Rule 38.19 of the IAAF Competition Rules, the case was referred directly to CAS as a sole instance, bypassing a prior hearing, with the consent of all relevant parties, including the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and RUSAF. The arbitration panel, led by Sole Arbitrator Ken Lalo, assessed the evidence under the "balance of probability" standard, which requires the athlete to provide concrete, substantiated proof of how the prohibited substance entered their system. Kopeykin failed to meet this burden, as his explanation lacked corroborating evidence and relied on speculative hypotheses. The panel emphasized that mere protestations of innocence or claims of inadvertent ingestion are insufficient without verifiable proof.
Kopeykin argued that he had been prescribed Migsis for migraines since 2003, but his claims were undermined by inconsistencies in testimony from his doctor, Dr. Olga Konstantinycheva, and the absence of medical records or prescriptions. The Sole Arbitrator found their testimonies unreliable, citing improbabilities such as a minor affording an expensive foreign drug without parental involvement and the lack of follow-up medical documentation. The arbitrator also dismissed comparisons to a previous CAS case where an athlete successfully argued inadvertent ingestion, as the circumstances and credibility of witnesses differed significantly.
The decision addressed the issue of intent, noting that proving lack of intent without establishing the source of the prohibited substance requires exceptional circumstances, which Kopeykin did not demonstrate. The panel concluded that the anti-doping rule violation was established, upholding the IAAF's charges. The standard sanction for such a violation is a four-year period of ineligibility, which was imposed on Kopeykin, effective from the date of his provisional suspension on 4 May 2017. Additionally, all competitive results he achieved between the positive test date (6 December 2016) and the start of his suspension were disqualified, leading to forfeiture of titles, awards, and prizes.
The ruling underscores the stringent evidentiary requirements athletes must meet to contest doping allegations and the challenges in disproving intentional violations without definitive proof of substance origin. It reinforces the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, holding athletes accountable for any prohibited substances found in their systems regardless of intent. The case highlights the high burden of proof placed on athletes to demonstrate lack of intent, particularly when the source of the prohibited substance remains unverified. The final decision emphasizes the importance of credible evidence and procedural compliance in anti-doping cases.