The case involves a dispute between the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the Russian Athletics Federation (RUSAF) along with athlete Elizaveta Grechishnikova, concerning multiple anti-doping rule violations. The IAAF referred the matter directly to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) due to RUSAF's suspension, which prevented it from conducting a hearing within the required deadline. The jurisdiction of CAS was established under Rule 38.3 of the IAAF Rules, allowing the IAAF to bypass the usual first-instance hearing process. The procedural rules applicable were those in force at the time of the proceedings, while the substantive rules governing the anti-doping violation were those in place at the time of the alleged offense, subject to the principle of lex mitior (the more lenient law).
Elizaveta Grechishnikova, a Russian middle-distance runner, had previously accepted a two-year sanction for an anti-doping rule violation involving the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) in 2013. In 2017, a reanalysis of her sample from the 2009 IAAF World Championships revealed the presence of dehydrochlormethyl-testosterone (DHCMT), a prohibited anabolic steroid. The IAAF notified her of the adverse finding and her rights, including the option to request a B-sample analysis or a hearing. The athlete did not respond, leading the IAAF to impose a provisional suspension and refer the case to CAS. The case highlighted the principle that multiple violations could be considered aggravating circumstances under Rule 40.7(d)(i) of the 2009 IAAF Rules. Since the athlete had already been sanctioned for another violation in the same year, the new violation warranted an increased sanction. Given the use of different doping methods (anabolic steroids and EPO/blood transfusion), the sanction was extended to the maximum of four years under Rule 40.6 of the 2009 IAAF Rules.
The sole arbitrator, Raphaëlle Favre Schnyder, concluded that the IAAF had followed proper procedures and that the athlete’s failure to respond constituted an acceptance of the violation. The arbitrator confirmed that CAS had jurisdiction and that the request was admissible, given the circumstances. The legal analysis emphasized the athlete’s multiple violations and the aggravating factors, supporting the IAAF’s argument for a heightened sanction. The case underscores the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations and the consequences of repeated violations, particularly when involving different prohibited substances or methods. The arbitrator’s decision aligned with the IAAF’s submissions, reflecting the seriousness of the violations and the need for deterrence in anti-doping enforcement.
The Sole Arbitrator ruled that the athlete had committed an anti-doping violation and imposed a two-year ineligibility period, consistent with the 2009 IAAF Rules, without finding grounds for mitigation or aggravation. The decision underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances found in their samples, regardless of intent. The athlete’s results from August 2009 to October 2013 were disqualified due to the earlier violation, and no further disqualification was deemed necessary. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld the IAAF’s request, finding the athlete responsible for the anti-doping violation and imposing a two-year ineligibility period starting from May 18, 2017. The award also noted the possibility of appeal under Rule 42 of the 2016-2017 IAAF Rules. The decision concluded with the dismissal of all other motions or relief requests. The case highlights the complexities of applying anti-doping regulations across different time periods and the importance of adhering to procedural and substantive legal frameworks in sports arbitration.