The case involves a dispute between the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the Russian Athletics Federation (RUSAF) along with athlete Elena Slesarenko, concerning anti-doping rule violations. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an award addressing multiple legal and procedural aspects. The IAAF referred the case to CAS due to RUSAF's suspension, which prevented it from conducting the hearing process, and Slesarenko's status as an International-Level Athlete who tacitly accepted the procedure. The case centered on two violations: one from the 2008 Beijing Olympics and another from the 2011 World Championships in Daegu, both involving the prohibited substance Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (DHCMT). The IAAF argued that the violations warranted sanctions under its Anti-Doping Rules (ADR). The CAS panel, led by a sole arbitrator, determined that the 2008 violation was subject to the rules in place at the time of the offense, while procedural matters followed the version of the rules just before 3 April 2017. The panel also recognized the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) adjudication of the 2008 violation as binding under IAAF rules.
The panel considered aggravating circumstances, including multiple violations, which justified increasing Slesarenko's period of ineligibility up to four years unless she could prove she did not knowingly commit the violations. The panel also addressed the disqualification of competitive results, emphasizing the principle of fairness to avoid disproportionate sanctions. While the IAAF rules initially mandated disqualification from the first positive sample to the provisional suspension, the panel ruled that fairness required limiting disqualification to the duration of the imposed ban, aligning with the World Anti-Doping Code's proportionality requirements. The panel assessed the severity of the disqualification sanction, noting its retroactive impact on titles, awards, and earnings. Given the lack of evidence of doping outside the two proven violations, disqualifying results spanning over eight years was deemed excessive. Instead, the panel ruled that disqualification should match the length of the imposed ban, reflecting the IAAF's policy in retesting cases.
The factual background detailed Slesarenko's doping violations, including the 2008 Olympic sample retest revealing DHCMT and the 2011 World Championships sample showing the same substance. Despite opportunities to respond, Slesarenko did not provide explanations or request further testing. The IOC disqualified her 2008 results, and the IAAF sought additional sanctions. The case highlights the balance between enforcing anti-doping rules and ensuring fairness in sanctions, with CAS ultimately applying a proportional approach to disqualification. The decision underscores the importance of individualized assessments in anti-doping cases to avoid unjust outcomes. The Sole Arbitrator concluded that the athlete committed both ADRVs and, given the repeated use of prohibited substances and the absence of mitigating arguments, imposed a four-year period of ineligibility. The ruling underscores the seriousness of the violations and the need for stringent sanctions to uphold anti-doping regulations.
The arbitrator emphasized that while disqualification of results is a severe sanction, it is not fair to disqualify all of Slesarenko's results from August 2008 to October 2016, as there was no evidence of doping except on two specific dates. The ruling imposed a four-year ineligibility period on Slesarenko starting from October 4, 2016, and disqualified all her competitive results from August 23, 2008, to August 22, 2012, including the forfeiture of titles, awards, medals, points, and prize money. The IAAF's request for arbitration was partially upheld, and all other relief requests were dismissed. The decision underscores the balance between fairness and the severity of sanctions in doping cases.