The case involves the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF, now World Athletics) against the Russian Athletics Federation (RUSAF) and athlete Anna Nazarova-Klyashtornaya, concerning a doping violation during the 2012 Olympic Games. The athlete, a long-jumper, tested positive for dehydrochloromethyltestosterone (DHCMT), a prohibited substance, in a re-analysis of her 2012 sample conducted in 2017 using advanced methods. The initial test in 2012 did not detect the substance. The IAAF, through its Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), initiated proceedings, imposing a provisional suspension on the athlete after she failed to respond to notifications. The IOC Disciplinary Commission confirmed the anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) and disqualified her results from the 2012 Olympics. The case was then referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to determine further sanctions.
Key legal principles discussed include the purpose of disqualifying an athlete’s results, which aims to correct unfair advantages and remove tainted performances rather than being punitive. However, disqualification can effectively act as a retroactive sanction due to forfeiture of titles, medals, and prizes. The principle of fairness, rooted in Swiss and Monaco law, allows for proportionality in sanctions, ensuring they are appropriate to the violation. Factors considered include the athlete’s degree of fault, the impact of disqualification, delays in proceedings, and the length of the disqualification period. The athlete did not participate in the proceedings or contest the findings, highlighting challenges in re-testing samples with improved technology and balancing anti-doping enforcement with proportional consequences.
The CAS proceedings were governed by Rule 38.3 of the 2016 IAAF Rules, allowing the case to be handled under CAS appeal arbitration procedures without time limits for appeal. The athlete and RUSAF were notified but did not respond, leading the sole arbitrator, Ken Lalo, to proceed based on written submissions. The IAAF sought a two-year ineligibility period, starting from the date of the CAS award, with credit for the provisional suspension served since May 2017, and disqualification of all competitive results from August 2012 to May 2017, including forfeiture of titles and prizes. The arbitrator confirmed CAS’s jurisdiction and ruled in favor of the IAAF’s requests, emphasizing the athlete’s violation and procedural failures of the respondents.
The substantive matters were governed by the 2012 IAAF Rules, with procedural matters following the 2016 IAAF Rules. The athlete violated Rule 32.2(a) of the 2012 IAAF Rules, leading to a standard two-year ineligibility period. The arbitrator upheld this sanction, noting the absence of grounds for reduction. The disqualification of results was mandated under Rule 40.8, with the IOC having already disqualified her 2012 Olympic results. The 2012 IAAF Rules lacked a "fairness exception," which had been removed in 2009 and reintroduced in 2015. The decision aligned with prior CAS jurisprudence, rejecting selective application of rules from different versions.
The arbitrator also considered the "fairness exception," acknowledging its removal from 2009 to 2014 but recognizing a general principle of fairness under Swiss and Monaco law. Disqualification aims to correct unfair advantages but must be proportional. Factors influencing fairness included the athlete’s intent, the substance involved, and the consequences of disqualification. In re-testing cases, some CAS panels linked disqualification periods to the length of ineligibility, arguing that immediate action would have prevented competition during that period. The arbitrator found the requested disqualification period excessive, given the delay in re-testing and lack of evidence of further violations. Consequently, the athlete’s results from August 2012 to August 2014 were disqualified, with a two-year ineligibility period and credit for time served.
The case underscores the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations while emphasizing fairness and proportionality. It highlights the challenges of re-testing samples and the balance between correcting unfair advantages and imposing excessive sanctions. The decision reinforces the importance of maintaining integrity in sports while considering the specific circumstances of each case.