The case involves Russian high jumper Svetlana Shkolina appealing a decision by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF, now World Athletics) regarding alleged anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs). The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) heard the appeal, focusing on procedural and evidentiary issues. The IAAF charged Shkolina based on circumstantial evidence from the McLaren Reports, which detailed a state-sponsored doping scheme in Russia, rather than direct positive test results. The panel ruled the appeal admissible despite the Russian Athletics Federation (RUSAF) not being named as a respondent, as the IAAF Rules do not mandate this in all circumstances, especially when the national association is no longer a member.
The IAAF Rules allow any reliable means to prove ADRVs, including circumstantial evidence, but findings must be based on reliable evidence. The panel emphasized that while the existence of a doping scheme is relevant, it alone does not establish individual violations. Instead, the totality of evidence must be considered. Liability under the IAAF Rules is strict, meaning intent or knowledge is irrelevant for establishing a violation, though an athlete’s state of knowledge may affect sanctions. The panel found that unless an athlete was aware of being part of a doping scheme, the scheme’s existence does not automatically aggravate the sanction.
The case stemmed from the McLaren Reports, which revealed a systematic doping program in Russia involving the manipulation of test results. The IAAF charged Shkolina based on evidence from these reports, including the "Disappearing Positive Methodology," where positive tests were concealed. The panel’s decision underscores the challenges of adjudicating doping cases based on circumstantial evidence and the importance of evaluating all evidence collectively. The ruling clarifies procedural and evidentiary standards in such cases while balancing fairness and strict liability principles.
Shkolina was implicated in doping schemes, with evidence showing her involvement in washout testing programs designed to monitor drug clearance rates before major events. Her samples were recorded as containing prohibited substances like desoxymethyltestosterone and methasterone but were reported as negative in official systems. The IAAF sought a four-year sanction, but Shkolina denied the allegations. The case proceeded to CAS, where the panel reviewed extensive evidence, including detailed records from the Moscow Laboratory.
The panel considered the reliability of the Electronic Documents Package (EDP) and Washout Schedules, which the IAAF relied on to infer Shkolina’s use of prohibited substances. While Shkolina disputed the documents' authenticity, pointing to inconsistencies, the panel found them credible, noting minor discrepancies did not undermine their overall reliability. Expert testimony played a significant role, with the panel favoring the technical forensic evidence supporting the documents' authenticity over Shkolina’s challenges.
The panel concluded Shkolina committed ADRVs by using prohibited substances on at least two occasions in 2012 and 2013. However, it reduced the initial four-year sanction to two years and nine months, finding no evidence Shkolina was aware of a broader doping scheme. The panel also adjusted the disqualification period of her competitive results to two years, five months, and 16 days, emphasizing fairness and proportionality.
The decision highlights the complexities of adjudicating doping cases based on non-analytical evidence and the importance of reliable proof. It underscores CAS’s role in ensuring sanctions are proportionate to violations while upholding anti-doping regulations. The ruling balances enforcement with fairness, reflecting the nuanced application of strict liability principles in anti-doping adjudication.