The case centers on Olga Kazankevich, a Russian para-powerlifter, who tested positive for the prohibited substance oxandrolone during a competition in May 2017. The Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) found her guilty of an anti-doping rule violation and imposed a four-year ban, effective from June 15, 2017. Kazankevich appealed the decision, arguing that the violation was unintentional, citing her use of supplements for pregnancy planning and preventive disease treatment. She suggested contaminated food as a possible source but failed to provide concrete evidence to support her claim. Under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), the burden of proof rested with Kazankevich to demonstrate, on a balance of probability, that the violation was not intentional. While earlier versions of the WADC required athletes to identify the source of the prohibited substance to prove lack of intent, the 2015 WADC allows for rare exceptions where intent may be disproven without identifying the source. However, mere claims of inadvertent ingestion through contaminated food or supplements are insufficient without credible evidence.
Kazankevich’s appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was reviewed by a sole arbitrator, who noted her failure to provide concrete proof linking her positive test to contaminated supplements or food. The absence of such evidence meant she could not meet her burden of proving lack of intent, leading the arbitrator to uphold RUSADA’s decision and maintain the four-year suspension. The case underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances found in their bodies, regardless of intent. It also highlights the challenges athletes face in proving unintentional violations, particularly when unable to identify the source of contamination. The ruling reaffirms that mere assertions of innocence, without substantiated evidence, are insufficient to overturn sanctions under the WADC framework.
Kazankevich sought to reduce her suspension to two years, arguing she had no incentive to dope due to her clean record, health concerns, and precautions against doping, including consultations with medical professionals. RUSADA maintained that she failed to demonstrate how oxandrolone entered her system and insisted on the standard four-year penalty. The arbitrator found her explanations insufficient to outweigh the likelihood of intentional use, emphasizing the high evidentiary standard required to reduce sanctions. The CAS upheld RUSADA’s decision, imposing a four-year ineligibility period starting from the date of her provisional suspension. The ruling reinforces the importance of athletes diligently managing their medication intake and verifying substances to avoid inadvertent violations.
The case also touches on the evolving legal landscape of anti-doping regulations. While the 2015 WADC does not explicitly require proof of the substance's origin to establish absence of intent, such cases remain exceptionally rare. The arbitrator aligned with newer interpretations, concluding that establishing the source is not obligatory but emphasized the high burden of proof on the athlete to demonstrate lack of intent. The decision underscores the balance between strict anti-doping enforcement and fairness to athletes, highlighting the rarity of proving lack of intent without identifying the source of the substance.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Kazankevich’s appeal, forfeiting her results from the Russian Powerlifting Championship and upholding the four-year ban. The ruling reinforces the strict standards of proof required in anti-doping cases to maintain the integrity of the regulations and prevent misuse of contamination claims. The case serves as a reminder of the stringent accountability athletes face under anti-doping rules and the challenges in contesting violations without compelling evidence.