The case revolves around Roman Balandin, a Russian basketball player who appealed a four-year suspension imposed by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) for an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) involving meldonium, a prohibited substance found in his system during a doping control in April 2017. Balandin did not contest the violation but argued it was unintentional, seeking a reduced sanction. The case was adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), with Alexander McLin as the sole arbitrator. Balandin, a young professional from a rural background, claimed he was unaware meldonium, present in the over-the-counter medication Mildronate, was banned. He and a teammate purchased Mildronate in 2016 after seeing an advertisement promoting it for fatigue relief, believing it harmless. Balandin also alleged the team doctor had previously recommended it, though this was disputed. He cited his lack of anti-doping education and isolated upbringing as reasons for his ignorance, referencing the Maria Sharapova case to argue intent should be based on actual knowledge rather than negligence.
RUSADA contended the violation was intentional, given Balandin’s professional status and the widespread awareness of meldonium’s prohibition since 2016. The CAS panel analyzed Balandin’s testimony, finding inconsistencies and insufficient evidence to prove lack of intent, thus upholding the four-year suspension. The decision emphasized athletes’ responsibility for substances they ingest, regardless of background or education. Balandin later sought to reduce the sanction, arguing his violation was unintentional due to negligence rather than intent. He claimed he relied on the team doctor’s advice and ceased using Mildronate upon learning it was prohibited. The CAS considered his youth, inexperience, and reliance on medical advice but concluded he failed to exercise due diligence, such as verifying the substance’s status. While the panel found no intent to cheat, it deemed his fault significant, reducing the suspension to two years under Article 10.2.2 of the Anti-Doping Rules, starting from his provisional suspension date in May 2017. The ruling highlighted the balance between strict anti-doping enforcement and fairness, noting the unique circumstances of the case without setting a precedent.
The case underscores the complexities of assessing intent and fault in doping violations, particularly when athletes rely on medical professionals and lack formal anti-doping education. It also reflects the rigorous standards of anti-doping adjudications and the challenges athletes face in proving unintentional violations. The final decision reinforced the principle of personal responsibility in anti-doping compliance, emphasizing the consequences of failing to meet these obligations. The CAS partially upheld Balandin’s appeal, reducing his suspension but dismissing further reductions due to his significant fault. The ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of athlete education and the need for clear communication regarding prohibited substances.