The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding an anti-doping rule violation claim by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) against Russian athlete Mariya Ponomareva and the Russian Athletic Federation (RUSAF). The IAAF alleged that Ponomareva violated Rule 32.2(b) of the 2016 IAAF Rules, which prohibits the use or attempted use of prohibited substances or methods. The evidence relied upon included the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP), expert reports, and testimonies from IAAF-appointed experts. The ABP, a tool used to monitor blood parameters over time, showed abnormal values in Ponomareva’s hemoglobin (HGB), reticulocyte percentage (RET%), and OFF-score across multiple samples collected between 2014 and 2017. The IAAF argued these abnormalities indicated blood doping, but the Sole Arbitrator, Hans Nater, emphasized that while the ABP is a reliable means of evidence, abnormal values alone do not automatically prove doping. A qualitative assessment by experts is necessary to determine whether deviations result from doping or other factors. The experts concluded that Ponomareva’s profile suggested blood manipulation, but the athlete failed to provide a credible non-doping explanation.
The case also addressed procedural principles, particularly the "tempus regit actum" rule, which generally applies substantive laws in force at the time of the contract and procedural rules at the time of the claim. However, transitional provisions may override this principle to ensure legal certainty. Since RUSAF was suspended and unable to conduct a hearing, the IAAF referred the case directly to CAS under Rule 38.3 of the IAAF Rules. The Sole Arbitrator found that blood doping constitutes an intentional violation, not involving specified substances, thus disqualifying the possibility of a reduced two-year sanction. The decision underscores the importance of expert interpretation in ABP cases, distinguishing between quantitative data and qualitative analysis to establish doping violations. The ruling affirmed that while abnormal ABP values raise suspicion, conclusive proof requires a thorough examination of all evidence to reach a comfortable satisfaction standard.
Ponomareva denied any wrongdoing, arguing that the statistical abnormalities in her ABP did not conclusively prove doping and required further explanation. She contended that non-doping factors, such as chronic illnesses, temporary medical conditions, and environmental factors like altitude training, could account for the irregularities. Her defense included expert reports and medical records supporting these claims. However, the Sole Arbitrator found her explanations inconsistent and implausible, particularly her claims about high-altitude training and hypoxic tent use, which were contradicted by her life schedule and social media activity. The Sole Arbitrator concluded that the most plausible explanation for the irregularities in the athlete’s blood profile was blood doping, as proposed by the IAAF.
Ultimately, the Sole Arbitrator determined that Ponomareva committed an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 32.2(b) of the 2015 IAAF Rules by using prohibited methods over a period exceeding two years, from 8 July 2015 to 18 October 2017. A four-year period of ineligibility was imposed, starting from 8 March 2018, the date of her provisional suspension, with credit given for the time already served under provisional suspension. Additionally, all competitive results achieved by Ponomareva between 8 July 2015 and 8 March 2018 were disqualified, including the forfeiture of titles, awards, medals, points, and prize money. The decision underscores the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations and the importance of maintaining fairness in disciplinary measures.