The case involves Russian triple jumper Lyukman Adams appealing a decision by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF, now World Athletics) regarding anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs). The appeal was heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which issued its award on 6 April 2021. The dispute stemmed from allegations based on the McLaren Reports, which investigated widespread doping in Russian athletics. The IAAF accused Adams of ADRVs despite no positive test results, relying instead on circumstantial evidence, including emails and washout schedules from the Moscow Laboratory’s Electronic Data Platform (EDP). The case centered on whether this evidence sufficed to establish ADRVs under IAAF rules.
The CAS panel ruled that the IAAF Rules permit any reliable means of proof, not requiring evidence specifically created for proving ADRVs. However, the evidence must be credible. The existence of a doping scheme, while relevant, does not automatically prove individual violations. The panel scrutinized the authenticity and reliability of the EDP documents, including emails and washout schedules, which referenced Adams by name or sample number, along with dates and prohibited substances. The panel found some emails authentic due to DKIM signatures, while others were corroborated by metadata. The washout schedules, though containing discrepancies, were deemed reliable for establishing substance use, even if exact concentrations couldn’t be determined. The panel dismissed Adams' argument that his samples tested negative in 2016, noting the doping scheme’s purpose was to evade detection during events like the 2012 Olympics.
The panel concluded Adams used multiple prohibited substances, including dehydroepiandrosterone, desoxymethyltestosterone, nandrolone, trenbolone, oxandrolone, methenolone, and ostarine, violating Rule 32.3(b) of the 2012/2014 IAAF Rules. This was his first violation, and the standard sanction under Rule 40.2 was a two-year ineligibility period. The panel considered aggravating factors, such as multiple violations over 19 months and participation in washout programs, but found no evidence Adams knowingly participated in a broader doping scheme. Despite this, the panel upheld the four-year ineligibility imposed by the initial arbitrator, deeming it proportionate given the repeated violations.
The panel also addressed the disqualification of Adams' competitive results under Rule 40.8, mandating forfeiture of titles, medals, and prizes from the first violation date until the suspension start. Adams argued for limited disqualification, citing proportionality, but the panel maintained disqualification from 16 July 2012 to 14 September 2014, noting the likelihood of continued performance-enhancing effects. The panel emphasized fairness and proportionality but upheld the disqualification’s severe consequences.
Key testimonies included Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, whose credibility was questioned due to evasiveness and lack of direct knowledge about Adams, and forensic experts Manuel Rundt and Andrew Sheldon, who analyzed the EDP documents. The panel favored Sheldon’s technical analysis, which found no tampering, over Rundt’s theoretical objections. Scientific experts Prof. Michael Graham and Prof. Christiane Ayotte debated the washout schedules’ plausibility, with the panel siding with Ayotte’s credible explanations.
Ultimately, the CAS panel dismissed Adams' appeal, confirming the ADRVs based on circumstantial evidence and upholding the four-year ineligibility and disqualification of results. The decision highlights the challenges of proving doping violations without direct analytical evidence and underscores the strict liability nature of anti-doping regulations. The case also illustrates the complexities of adjudicating institutionalized doping cases, balancing evidence reliability with fairness and proportionality in sanctions.