The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding an anti-doping rule violation by Russian wrestler Anzor Boltukaev, who tested positive for the prohibited substance higenamine during the 2017 European Wrestling Championships. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed a decision by United World Wrestling (UWW) that had reduced Boltukaev's sanction from the standard two-year suspension to ten months, citing no significant fault or negligence. Under UWW's Anti-Doping Regulations, an unintentional violation involving a specified substance like higenamine typically results in a two-year suspension, but this can be reduced if the athlete proves the substance entered their system through a contaminated product and they bear no significant fault or negligence. Boltukaev claimed the higenamine might have come from supplements or coffee but failed to identify a specific contaminated product or provide sufficient evidence to support his claims.
The CAS panel found Boltukaev's explanations inadequate, emphasizing that unverified hypotheses or general claims about supplement use are insufficient to establish the substance's origin. WADA argued that UWW erred in not imposing the full two-year sanction, as Boltukaev did not conclusively prove how the substance entered his system. The CAS agreed, ruling that without clear evidence of contamination, no reduction in sanction was justified. The panel reinstated the standard two-year suspension, starting from the date of the award, with credit given for the provisional suspension Boltukaev had already served. Additionally, all competitive results obtained by Boltukaev between the date of the violation and his provisional suspension were disqualified, including forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes.
The case highlights the stringent requirements athletes must meet to contest doping violations successfully. Athletes bear the responsibility to demonstrate the source of a prohibited substance with persuasive evidence, not mere speculation. The decision reinforces the importance of strict adherence to anti-doping rules and the need for concrete evidence when challenging violations. Despite Boltukaev's claims of unintentional ingestion and cooperation with the investigation, his failure to provide substantiated evidence led to the full sanction being upheld. The ruling underscores the challenges athletes face in proving contamination and the high standard of proof required to mitigate sanctions in anti-doping cases. The CAS's final decision emphasizes the integrity of anti-doping regulations and the consequences of failing to meet evidentiary burdens.