The case involves a dispute between the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the Russian Athletics Federation (RUSAF) along with athlete Kseniya Agafonova, concerning an alleged anti-doping rule violation. The IAAF initiated proceedings after Agafonova's sample from the 2009 World Championships tested positive for dehydrochloromethyltestosterone (DHCMT), a prohibited anabolic steroid, upon re-analysis in 2017. The athlete was notified of the adverse finding but did not respond or request analysis of her B-sample, leading to a provisional suspension. The IAAF referred the matter directly to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) under Rule 38.3 of the IAAF Rules, as RUSAF was suspended and unable to conduct a hearing.
The CAS Sole Arbitrator, Raphaëlle Favre Schnyder, confirmed jurisdiction under the IAAF Rules due to RUSAF's suspension. The procedural aspects of the case were governed by the rules in effect at the time of the proceedings, while the substantive anti-doping violation was assessed under the 2009 IAAF Rules, applying the principle of tempus regit actum. The athlete did not provide any explanation or mitigating circumstances for the presence of the prohibited substance. The IAAF successfully established the violation to the standard of "comfortable satisfaction," leading the Sole Arbitrator to conclude that Agafonova violated Rule 32.2(a) of the 2009 IAAF Rules, which prohibits the presence of a prohibited substance in an athlete's body.
As a consequence, the athlete was sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility, consistent with the sanctions prescribed for non-specified substances under the 2009 IAAF Rules. The ineligibility period commenced on the date of the provisional suspension (29 September 2017), with credit given for the time already served. Additionally, all competitive results obtained by the athlete from 15 August 2009 to 14 August 2011 were disqualified, including forfeiture of titles, awards, medals, and prize money. The disqualification period was limited to two years from the sample collection date as a matter of fairness, aligning with the IAAF's policy in retesting cases.
The case underscores the IAAF's authority to refer doping cases directly to CAS when a member federation is unable to adjudicate them. It also highlights the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are held accountable for prohibited substances in their samples regardless of intent. The decision reaffirms the application of procedural and substantive rules in force at the relevant times, ensuring fairness while maintaining the integrity of anti-doping enforcement. The athlete’s failure to contest the findings or provide an explanation led to the imposition of the standard sanction. The ruling serves as a reminder of the consequences of non-compliance with anti-doping procedures and the importance of timely responses in disciplinary proceedings. The award, dated 27 April 2018, dismissed all other motions or requests for relief, though the athlete retains the right to appeal under Rule 42 of the 2016-2017 IAAF Rules. The case reinforces the importance of maintaining integrity in sports through rigorous anti-doping enforcement.