The case revolves around Aleksei Medvedev, a professional cyclist who appealed a two-year ban imposed by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) for an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) involving the presence of furosemide, a prohibited substance, in his urine sample. The violation was detected during an out-of-competition test on May 9, 2017. Medvedev argued that he had unknowingly ingested furosemide during emergency treatment for a concussion sustained in a cycling accident on May 7, 2017, and therefore bore no fault or negligence. The case was heard by a sole arbitrator at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), who confirmed the ADRV under Article 2.1 of the applicable anti-doping rules. The standard sanction for such a violation involving a specified substance is a two-year ban, unless the violation is deemed intentional, which would increase the ban to four years. Medvedev sought to eliminate or reduce the sanction by proving no fault or negligence or no significant fault or negligence. The arbitrator ruled that Medvedev did not qualify for a finding of no fault, as he failed to exercise the required "utmost caution" to avoid doping. Despite his concussed state during the initial ingestion, he neglected his duty to mitigate the violation by not reporting the accidental ingestion or seeking a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) afterward. However, the arbitrator acknowledged that Medvedev's fault was not significant, given the circumstances of his concussion and the single pill ingestion under medical supervision. Consequently, the two-year ban was upheld, as the arbitrator found no grounds for further reduction under the rules.
The case underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances in their bodies, regardless of intent. It also highlights the importance of athletes' duty to mitigate violations by promptly reporting accidental ingestions and complying with anti-doping procedures. The arbitrator emphasized that even in cases of genuine accidental ingestion, athletes must take proactive steps to address the situation to avoid or reduce sanctions. The decision reaffirms the balance between enforcing anti-doping rules and considering the specific circumstances of each case.
Medvedev’s defense centered on his lack of awareness of the substance due to his concussion and argued that any subsequent failure to investigate or report was irrelevant to the violation. RUSADA countered that as an experienced professional, the athlete was responsible for ensuring his medical treatment complied with anti-doping rules. The sole arbitrator’s task was to determine whether the athlete’s fault or negligence warranted a reduction in the sanction. The case highlights the complexities of anti-doping violations, particularly when athletes claim unintentional ingestion due to medical circumstances. The final decision hinged on whether the athlete’s actions (or inactions) constituted significant fault under the applicable rules.
The arbitrator found inconsistencies in the evidence, such as Medvedev’s father warning the doctor about prohibited substances yet furosemide being administered. The arbitrator questioned whether Medvedev exercised "utmost caution" to avoid doping, as required by anti-doping rules. The decision underscores the high standard of proof required to establish "no fault" and the limited exceptions where such a defense succeeds. The arbitrator ultimately concluded that Medvedev bore some degree of fault, making a full exemption from sanctions unjustified. However, the arbitrator reduced the standard two-year ineligibility period to six months, balancing the athlete’s negligence with the mitigating factors of his situation. The starting date for the sanction was set as June 19, 2017, the date the athlete was notified of the ADRV and provisional suspension, rather than the date of the initial testing (May 9, 2017). This decision balanced fairness, acknowledging the athlete’s unique circumstances while recognizing that the earlier date would have been overly harsh.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld the athlete’s appeal against the RUSADA Anti-Doping Disciplinary Committee’s decision, setting aside the original ruling and imposing a six-month suspension starting from June 19, 2017. All other requests for relief were dismissed. The decision underscores the importance of context in anti-doping cases, particularly where emergency medical treatment and lack of awareness play significant roles in the violation. The case serves as a reminder of the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and the need for athletes to take proactive steps to mitigate violations