The case involves Svetlana Karamasheva, a Russian middle-distance runner, who appealed against a doping violation decision by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the All Russia Athletic Federation (ARAF). The dispute centered on abnormalities in her Athlete Biological Passport (ABP), a tool used to detect doping by monitoring biomarkers like hemoglobin concentration (HGB), reticulocyte percentage (RET%), and OFF-scores over time. The IAAF accused Karamasheva of violating anti-doping rules based on irregularities in her ABP profile, suggesting the use of prohibited substances or methods such as recombinant erythropoietin (rEPO) or blood transfusions. The ABP relies on the Adaptive Model, a statistical tool comparing an athlete's blood values against population norms and their own historical data. Karamasheva's ABP showed fluctuations in HGB and RET% across twelve samples collected between 2012 and 2016, which an expert panel concluded were consistent with blood doping.
Karamasheva attempted to challenge the ABP findings by citing procedural deviations, such as delayed sample analysis and improper storage, but the panel found no evidence these affected the results. She also offered alternative explanations, including a miscarriage, childbirth, altitude training, and a rotavirus infection, but the panel dismissed these as insufficient to account for the abnormalities. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld the IAAF's decision, emphasizing the ABP's reliability and the high burden of proof required to contest its findings. The ruling reinforced that athletes must demonstrate both a procedural departure and its causal link to abnormal results, a threshold Karamasheva failed to meet.
The case proceeded through multiple stages, including expert reviews and hearings. Karamasheva's arguments focused on alleged technical flaws in sample handling, such as delays beyond the recommended 36-hour analysis window and inconsistencies in documentation. However, expert testimony confirmed the samples' stability and dismissed claims of degradation. The panel noted that minor procedural errors did not invalidate the ABP's conclusions, as the abnormalities were consistent with doping rather than storage artifacts. The CAS also addressed jurisdictional and procedural matters, confirming its authority under IAAF rules and rejecting Karamasheva's request for a sole arbitrator due to financial constraints.
Ultimately, the CAS panel upheld the original decision, finding Karamasheva guilty of multiple anti-doping rule violations under the 2012 IAAF Rules. The panel imposed a two-and-a-half-year ineligibility period, citing aggravating factors like repeated violations and sophisticated methods to evade detection. Karamasheva's competitive results from 2012 to 2014 were disqualified. The case underscores the ABP's role in anti-doping enforcement and the challenges athletes face in contesting its findings without compelling evidence of procedural flaws or alternative physiological explanations. The decision reaffirmed the stringent standards and procedural safeguards in anti-doping adjudications, maintaining the integrity of the sport.