The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) case CAS 2017/A/5446 involved Russian cross-country skier Anastasia Dotsenko and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), addressing allegations of doping violations during the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. The case centered on claims that Dotsenko participated in a state-sponsored doping scheme, including the use of prohibited substances and methods, tampering with doping controls, and complicity in covering up violations. The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Christoph Vedder, Mr. Hamid Gharavi, and Mr. Dirk-Reiner Martens, examined the evidence under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), applying the "comfortable satisfaction" standard of proof, which requires more compelling evidence for serious allegations.
Key issues included the reliability of evidence such as the "Duchess List," which allegedly identified athletes involved in the doping program, and forensic analyses of urine samples showing abnormal sodium levels and tampering marks on sample bottles. The IOC argued that Dotsenko provided clean urine beforehand and deliberately left sample bottles improperly sealed to facilitate substitution, implicating her in the scheme. However, the panel found no direct evidence linking Dotsenko to the provision of clean urine or the consumption of prohibited substances. While forensic anomalies suggested tampering, the panel noted methodological flaws in the analysis, including the limited sample size and lack of consideration for alternative explanations for the marks.
The panel concluded that Dotsenko committed anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs) under Article 2.2 of the WADC for using prohibited methods (urine substitution) but found insufficient evidence to prove she used prohibited substances or participated in a broader cover-up conspiracy under Articles 2.5 and 2.8. The IOC's initial sanction—a lifetime ban from the Olympics—was deemed disproportionate. Instead, the panel ruled Dotsenko ineligible for one subsequent Olympic Winter Games (PyeongChang 2018), aligning the penalty with the IOC's suspension of the Russian Olympic Committee for one cycle. The decision emphasized the lack of direct proof of Dotsenko's involvement in systemic doping, highlighting the challenges of adjudicating complex, large-scale doping cases while ensuring fairness to individual athletes.
The case underscored the tension between collective responsibility for institutional doping and the need for individualized evidence of wrongdoing. The panel's ruling balanced anti-doping enforcement with due process, modifying sanctions to reflect the specific violations proven while dismissing broader allegations lacking concrete support. The award also clarified jurisdictional issues, affirming the IOC's authority to sanction athletes during the Olympics but rejecting excessive penalties unsupported by evidence. Ultimately, the decision reinforced the importance of rigorous, evidence-based adjudication in anti-doping cases.