The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) between the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the Russian Athletic Federation (RUSAF) along with athlete Anisya Kirdyapkina. The dispute centered on alleged anti-doping rule violations based on anomalies in Kirdyapkina's Athlete Biological Passport (ABP). The IAAF accused Kirdyapkina of using prohibited substances or methods, particularly blood doping, dating back to 2011. The ABP analysis, conducted by an expert panel, indicated abnormalities in her hemoglobin, reticulocyte percentage, and OFF-score values, suggesting potential doping. Kirdyapkina denied the allegations, attributing the anomalies to medical conditions like ovarian cysts, pregnancy, and miscarriages. However, the expert panel found her explanations insufficient without detailed medical records to substantiate her claims.
The arbitration addressed several key legal principles, including the acceptance of CAS jurisdiction if not challenged before engaging in the merits of the case. Procedural matters were governed by the regulations in force at the time proceedings began, while Swiss law determined the burden of proof as a substantive issue. The ABP was recognized as a generally reliable evidence tool, though its application in specific cases could be contested if compelling arguments challenged its validity. The panel concluded that establishing a doping violation via ABP required more than abnormal values; a "doping scenario" had to be proven through expert interpretation and additional evidence.
The IAAF presented three expert reports concluding that the irregularities in Kirdyapkina's blood profile were highly unlikely to result from normal physiological or pathological conditions and were instead indicative of prohibited substance use. The experts noted specific abnormalities, such as increased reticulocytes without anemia, which aligned with scenarios of exogenous erythropoietic stimulation, such as the use of recombinant erythropoietin or other erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. The athlete’s explanations for these abnormalities were deemed insufficient to account for the observed patterns. The Sole Arbitrator reviewed the evidence, including the timing of samples, and found that Kirdyapkina’s hemoglobin levels were consistently higher during competitive periods, further supporting the doping allegations.
The Sole Arbitrator concluded that Kirdyapkina engaged in a doping scheme between February 2011 and October 2013, violating IAAF anti-doping rules. Regarding sanctions, the IAAF rules stipulated a standard two-year ineligibility period for first-time violations involving prohibited substances or methods. However, aggravating factors, such as the athlete’s involvement in a doping plan or scheme, could extend the sanction up to four years. The Arbitrator found no grounds for reducing the sanction, as the athlete failed to demonstrate no significant fault or negligence. The evidence overwhelmingly pointed to deliberate blood doping, leading to the imposition of a three-year ineligibility period starting from the date of the provisional suspension, July 27, 2017.
Additionally, the arbitrator addressed the disqualification of the athlete's competitive results. According to IAAF rules, all results from the date of the first violation through the commencement of the provisional suspension or ineligibility period must be disqualified. The arbitrator ruled that disqualifying results beyond October 11, 2013, would be unfair, as no doping was established after that date, and the athlete had no responsibility for the delay in proceedings. Consequently, the Arbitrator disqualified all results from February 25, 2011, to October 11, 2013, including forfeiture of titles, awards, medals, and prize money. The decision underscored the reliability of ABP analysis in detecting blood manipulation and the stringent consequences for violations, balancing fairness while upholding the integrity of anti-doping regulations. The case highlights the complexities of ABP-based doping allegations, the necessity of expert interpretation, and the balance between strict enforcement and procedural fairness.