The case involves Russian athlete Ekaterina Galitskaia, who appealed 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 April 6, 2021. The case stemmed from the McLaren Reports, which revealed a state-sponsored doping scheme in Russia involving the manipulation of test results to protect athletes who had used prohibited substances. The IAAF charged Galitskaia with ADRVs based on evidence from these reports, despite the absence of direct positive test results. The panel clarified that the IAAF Competition Rules do not require direct evidence and allow for reliance on circumstantial evidence, though each case must be assessed individually.
The panel emphasized that liability under the IAAF Rules is strict, meaning an ADRV can be established regardless of the athlete's intent or knowledge. However, the athlete's state of knowledge is relevant when determining sanctions. The panel found no evidence that Galitskaia knew of the broader doping scheme, so it could not be considered an aggravating circumstance. The case hinged on the reliability of the Electronic Data Package (EDP) documents, including the London and Moscow Washout Schedules, which allegedly showed Galitskaia's use of prohibited substances. The athlete denied the allegations, arguing the evidence was unreliable and lacked proper forensic verification. Expert testimonies were divided, with some questioning the scientific plausibility of the data and others defending its credibility.
The majority of the panel concluded that Galitskaia had used multiple prohibited substances, including desoxymethyltestosterone (DMT), methasterone, and trenbolone, in 2012 and 2013. These substances were banned at all times under the WADA List, leading to a violation of Rule 32.3(b) of the 2012 IAAF Rules. As this was her first violation, the standard sanction was a two-year period of ineligibility. The panel considered aggravating factors, such as the use of multiple substances and participation in a washout program, but found insufficient evidence to prove her awareness of the broader scheme. Ultimately, the panel reduced the original four-year sanction to three years, citing proportionality.
The panel also addressed the disqualification of Galitskaia's competitive results under Rule 40.8 of the 2012 IAAF Rules, which mandates the annulment of results obtained during the violation period. The athlete argued for a limited disqualification, claiming no unfair advantage was gained. The panel upheld the disqualification of her results from July 15, 2012, to December 31, 2014, including forfeiture of titles, awards, and prize money, emphasizing the need to correct any potential unfair advantage. The decision balanced the severity of the violations with the lack of conclusive evidence regarding her knowledge of the doping scheme, underscoring the strict liability nature of anti-doping regulations while acknowledging the importance of fairness and proportionality.