The case of Inna Dyubanok v. the International Olympic Committee (IOC) involved allegations of doping violations during the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) adjudicated the matter, focusing on whether Dyubanok participated in a state-sponsored doping scheme, including urine sample substitution and the use of prohibited substances. The IOC accused Dyubanok of violating anti-doping rules under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), specifically Articles 2.2 (use of prohibited substances or methods), 2.5 (tampering with doping control), and 2.8 (complicity in doping violations).
Key evidence included forensic analysis of urine samples, which showed abnormally high sodium levels (714–729 mmol/l), far exceeding physiological norms, suggesting deliberate tampering. Additionally, marks on sample bottles indicated possible forced reopening. Testimony from Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, the former head of Russia’s anti-doping laboratory, detailed a systematic doping operation involving the Russian Ministry of Sport, the FSB, and athletes. He described the "Duchess Cocktail," a performance-enhancing drug mixture, and a urine-swapping scheme where clean samples replaced tainted ones. However, Dyubanok denied involvement, arguing the evidence against her was circumstantial and unreliable.
The CAS panel applied the "comfortable satisfaction" standard of proof, requiring strong but not conclusive evidence. It found Dyubanok guilty under Article 2.2 for urine substitution, inferring she used prohibited substances since swapping samples would otherwise serve no purpose. However, the panel dismissed charges under Articles 2.5 and 2.8, citing insufficient proof of tampering or complicity in others’ violations. The IOC had initially imposed a lifetime Olympic ban, but the CAS reduced this to ineligibility for the 2018 PyeongChang Games, deeming the original sanction disproportionate.
The panel also addressed procedural fairness, noting any initial due process shortcomings were remedied during the CAS hearing. Costs were limited to a nominal fee, with each party bearing its own legal expenses. The decision underscored the challenges of proving individual guilt in systemic doping cases while emphasizing the need for proportionality in sanctions. Ultimately, the ruling balanced accountability for violations with fairness to the athlete, reflecting the complexities of adjudicating high-profile anti-doping disputes.