The case involves Russian rower Sergey Fedorovtsev, who tested positive for the prohibited substance trimetazidine during an out-of-competition doping test in May 2016. The test was conducted by the Anti-Doping Laboratory of Lausanne (LAD), which reported an adverse analytical finding (AAF) in June 2016. Fedorovtsev was notified and requested a B sample analysis, which confirmed the presence of the substance. However, disputes arose over whether he and his representatives were allowed to observe the entire B sample procedure. The case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), with Fedorovtsev arguing that procedural violations invalidated the results and that he did not intentionally dope.
Fedorovtsev claimed he had no incentive to dope, citing his successful career, including an Olympic gold medal in 2004. He also suggested the substance could have entered his system through contaminated supplements or medication, though he provided no concrete evidence. The CAS panel emphasized that while proving the source of the substance is not mandatory to disprove intent, the athlete must present convincing, objective evidence to meet the balance of probability standard. The panel found his explanations insufficient and rejected his challenge to the B sample analysis, noting he had allowed the process to proceed in his absence.
The respondents—RUSADA, WADA, and FISA—argued the violation was intentional and sought a four-year suspension. WADA dismissed Fedorovtsev’s claim of exclusion from the analysis, stating he and his representative left voluntarily. The panel agreed, concluding the B sample results were valid and the violation was confirmed. Under anti-doping rules, a four-year suspension is standard for intentional violations, though it can be reduced to two years if unintentional. The panel found no credible evidence to support Fedorovtsev’s claim of unintentional ingestion, upholding the four-year ban.
The case highlights the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are responsible for substances in their bodies regardless of intent. It also underscores the challenges athletes face in contesting violations, particularly when procedural disputes or alternative explanations lack substantiation. The panel’s decision reinforced the importance of adhering to anti-doping protocols and the high evidentiary burden on athletes to disprove intent. Fedorovtsev’s suspension was backdated to his provisional suspension in June 2016, and his competitive results during the relevant period were disqualified. The ruling serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements for transparency and procedural fairness in doping cases, as well as the consequences of failing to meet evidentiary standards.