The case revolves around an appeal by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) against the decision of the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Commission (DADC) in Russia, which had acquitted coach Andrei Valerievich Eremenko of anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs). The allegations stemmed from an incident on September 2, 2017, during a track and field competition in Sochi, where Eremenko’s athlete, Yulia Viktorovna Malueva, was selected for doping control. Malueva failed to provide a urine sample after prolonged delays, during which she exhibited symptoms of illness and was eventually hospitalized. RUSADA accused Eremenko of attempting to tamper with the doping control process by allegedly offering a bribe to a Doping Control Officer (DCO) and complicity in Malueva’s evasion of sample collection.
The DADC initially found Malueva guilty of evading sample collection under Article 2.3 of the All Russian Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) and imposed a four-year suspension, which she did not appeal. However, the DADC cleared Eremenko of charges under Article 2.5 (Tampering/Attempted Tampering) and Article 2.9 (Complicity) of the ADR. RUSADA appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that Eremenko’s actions constituted interference with the doping control process. The CAS panel, led by Sole Arbitrator Sylvia Schenk, reviewed the evidence, including witness statements and reports from the DCOs. The panel found that Eremenko’s offer of a bribe to a DCO to replace the sample qualified as attempted tampering under Article 2.5 of the ADR and also constituted complicity under Article 2.9.
The testimonies of key witnesses, including DCOs Mr. Mareichev and Mr. Sorokin, were pivotal in the case. Mareichev testified that Eremenko approached him outside a hospital, suggesting a sample replacement in exchange for money, though no specific amount was mentioned. Mareichev rejected the offer and reported the incident to his superiors. Sorokin corroborated Mareichev’s testimony, recalling that Mareichev informed him about Eremenko’s bribe offer upon returning from the hospital. The authenticity of WhatsApp messages exchanged between Mareichev and another DCO, Ms. Meshkova, was also confirmed, supporting the timeline and decision-making process during the mission.
Eremenko denied all allegations, asserting that RUSADA failed to provide credible evidence. He disputed the tampering charge, arguing that the DCO’s testimony lacked crucial details and was unreliable. He also questioned why he would attempt to bribe an officer who had no authority to alter the doping control process. Regarding the complicity charge, he highlighted that Malueva’s hospitalization was justified by her medical condition and dismissed claims of collusion. However, the Sole Arbitrator found Eremenko’s behavior during the hearing inconsistent and aggressive, undermining his credibility. His claims, such as not recognizing Mareichev as a DCO despite clear identification, were deemed implausible.
The CAS panel overturned the DADC’s decision and imposed a four-year sanction on Eremenko, aligning with the standard penalty for such violations. The ruling emphasized that attempts to undermine the doping control process, including bribery, are serious offenses warranting significant sanctions to uphold the integrity of anti-doping efforts. The decision reinforces the principle that athlete support personnel, like coaches, are equally accountable for anti-doping violations and must adhere to strict ethical standards. The case underscores the importance of maintaining transparency and fairness in anti-doping procedures.
The final award was issued on April 16, 2020, with the ineligibility period beginning on the date of the CAS decision, as Eremenko had not been provisionally suspended. The CAS dismissed all other motions and upheld the four-year sanction, concluding that Eremenko’s actions constituted a single continuous violation. The case highlights the procedural and evidentiary challenges in anti-doping disputes, particularly when relying on witness credibility and circumstantial evidence. It also reflects the broader implications for anti-doping enforcement and the need for rigorous adherence to protocols to ensure the integrity of sports.