The case involves Sabina Ashirbayeva, a rhythmic gymnast from Kazakhstan, who appealed a decision by the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) Disciplinary Committee after being found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV). The violation stemmed from the presence of prohibited substances—furosemide, hydrochlorothiazide, and chlorothiazide—in four samples collected between April and June 2017 during various competitions, including World Cup events and the Asian Championships. These substances, classified as diuretics and masking agents under the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List, led to a two-year ineligibility period starting from June 7, 2018, and required Ashirbayeva to return prizes and medals earned during the affected period.
Ashirbayeva waived her right to request B-sample analysis and did not respond to the FIG’s charge letter or request a hearing, prompting the FIG Disciplinary Committee to proceed without her participation. The FIG treated the multiple violations as a single first violation under its anti-doping rules, as the subsequent violations occurred before she was notified of the initial one. The sanction was based on the most severe violation.
In her appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), Ashirbayeva contested only the sanction, not the violation itself. The proceedings were simplified, with a sole arbitrator, Michael Beloff QC, appointed to decide the case based on written submissions. Ashirbayeva argued that she had admitted to the violation in December 2017, before official notice from the FIG, and claimed her use of the substances was unintentional due to a medical condition. However, she failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as medical documentation or proof of her early admission, to support her claims. The FIG countered that her admission did not meet the criteria for a reduced sanction under anti-doping rules, as it was neither timely nor properly communicated to the relevant authorities.
The arbitrator emphasized the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, holding athletes responsible for prohibited substances in their bodies regardless of intent. He distinguished between pleas for mercy (seeking leniency outside the rules) and pleas in mitigation (arguments within the rules), noting that Ashirbayeva’s personal circumstances and contrition did not justify reducing the sanction. The arbitrator also dismissed FIG’s implied suggestion that Ashirbayeva’s use of the substances was intentional, as this claim was not substantiated. While the arbitrator considered the delay between the violation notification and the charge letter, he found no grounds to adjust the sanction period due to the lack of explanation for the delay and Ashirbayeva’s failure to raise the issue.
Ultimately, the arbitrator upheld the FIG’s decision, dismissing Ashirbayeva’s appeal and confirming the two-year ineligibility period. The ruling reinforced the strict application of anti-doping rules and the limited scope for reducing sanctions without substantive mitigating evidence. The case underscores the importance of athletes verifying the contents of substances they ingest and adhering to procedural requirements in anti-doping proceedings.