The case involves Yana Romanova, a retired Russian biathlete, appealing against a decision by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) regarding alleged anti-doping rule violations during the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel examined the allegations under the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), focusing on whether Romanova participated in urine sample tampering or other prohibited methods. The panel clarified that Article 2.2 of the WADC, which covers specific prohibited methods, takes precedence over the broader Article 2.5, which addresses tampering with doping control. The standard of proof required the IOC to establish the violations to the panel's "comfortable satisfaction," a sliding scale demanding higher certainty for more severe accusations. The panel acknowledged the IOC's limited investigatory powers and reliance on circumstantial evidence, allowing reasonable inferences where direct evidence was lacking. However, it emphasized that the IOC must demonstrate Romanova's personal involvement in specific violations, not just her connection to a broader doping scheme.
The background of the case traces to allegations of a state-sponsored doping program in Russia, investigated by WADA's Independent Commission and Professor Richard McLaren. These investigations revealed systemic doping violations, including sample manipulation during the Sochi Games. Romanova, who won a silver medal in the 2014 relay, was implicated in these allegations. The IOC Disciplinary Commission concluded she violated anti-doping rules, annulling her results and disqualifying her from future Olympics. Romanova appealed, arguing the evidence against her was unreliable and inadmissible. She denied using prohibited substances or participating in sample tampering, highlighting her clean testing history and the lack of direct evidence linking her to the scheme.
Key points of contention included the reliability of the "Duchess List," which allegedly identified athletes involved in doping, and forensic analysis of sample bottles. Professor Champod's examination suggested tampering based on scratch marks (T-marks) on some bottles, but Romanova's defense challenged this, citing methodological flaws and alternative explanations for the marks. The panel found Champod's analysis persuasive but noted only one of Romanova's bottles showed multiple T-marks, undermining claims of systematic involvement. The panel also questioned the reliability of Dr. Rodchenkov's testimony, a key whistleblower, due to inconsistencies and lack of direct observation.
Ultimately, the panel concluded the evidence did not comfortably satisfy the burden of proof required to establish Romanova's personal involvement in doping violations. While one bottle likely had been tampered with, there was no conclusive evidence linking her to the act or the broader scheme. The panel set aside the IOC's decision, reinstating her individual results from the Sochi Games, though her relay disqualification remained due to separate proceedings. The case underscores the challenges of proving individual culpability in systemic doping scandals and the importance of robust, direct evidence in anti-doping adjudications.