The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) between the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the Romanian National Anti-Doping Agency (RANAD) concerning athlete Anda-Mihaela Vâlvoi. The dispute arose from an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) due to the detection of furosemide, a prohibited substance, in the athlete's sample during the National Junior and Youth Sambo Championship in 2017. Initially, RANAD's Hearing Commission imposed a four-year ineligibility period, but the RANAD Appeal Panel later acquitted her, prompting WADA to appeal to CAS.
WADA argued that the athlete failed to prove any procedural departures from the International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI) that could have caused the adverse analytical finding (AAF). The burden of proof initially lay with the athlete to demonstrate such departures, after which the anti-doping agency had to prove they did not cause the AAF. The athlete did not contest the analytical results but claimed no intent to dope, seeking a reduced sanction. The case involved multiple procedural delays, with RANAD and the athlete missing submission deadlines. The sole arbitrator, Raphaëlle Favre Schnyder, emphasized the importance of procedural adherence and the shifting burden of proof in anti-doping disputes.
The arbitrator upheld WADA's appeal, reinstating the original four-year sanction, later adjusted to two years, as the violation was deemed unintentional. The decision underscored the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, holding athletes accountable for prohibited substances in their samples unless they could prove procedural errors affected the results. The athlete's competitive results from September 17, 2017, to January 18, 2018, were disqualified, including forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes. The ineligibility period began on the date of the CAS award, with credit given for any provisional suspension served.
The case highlighted the tension between strict procedural compliance and the necessity for athletes to substantiate claims of procedural flaws. The athlete's acquittal by the RANAD Appeal Panel was overturned due to insufficient evidence linking alleged irregularities to the AAF. The final decision reinforced the integrity of anti-doping regulations and the consequences of failing to meet evidentiary burdens. The arbitration costs were borne by RANAD or jointly by the respondents, with WADA receiving a contribution to its legal expenses. The ruling affirmed the importance of adhering to anti-doping protocols and the role of CAS in resolving such disputes.