The case involves Natalya Antyukh, a retired Russian athlete, appealing against a decision by World Athletics (WA) regarding alleged doping violations. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel addressed key legal principles, emphasizing the discretion to exclude evidence in CAS proceedings, though such discretion should be used sparingly to prevent abuse or bad faith. The standard of proof required is "comfortable satisfaction," which lies between criminal standards (beyond reasonable doubt) and civil standards (balance of probabilities). This standard adjusts based on the seriousness of the allegations and their consequences, though the standard itself remains unchanged. The panel also discussed Rule 33.3 of the IAAF 2013 Anti-Doping Regulations, which allows facts related to doping violations to be established by any reliable means, including circumstantial evidence evaluated cumulatively. The principle of lex mitior (favoring the milder law) was clarified, stating it does not permit selecting the most favorable provisions from different rules.
Natalya Antyukh, a decorated athlete with Olympic and World Championship medals, was implicated in the broader Russian doping scandal. Investigations led by WADA-appointed commissions, including the Independent Commission and Professor Richard McLaren’s reports, revealed widespread doping practices, cover-ups, and manipulation of test results involving Russian athletes, coaches, and institutions like RUSADA and the Moscow Laboratory. The Moscow Laboratory maintained a "Clean Urine Bank" and employed FSB operatives to tamper with sample bottles. Washout Testing evolved from using official containers to unofficial ones like Coke or baby bottles to avoid detection. The McLaren Reports detailed three methodologies used to evade detection: the Disappearing Positives Methodology (DPM), where positive test results were reported as negative; the Sample Swapping Methodology, involving the substitution of "dirty" urine samples with "clean" ones; and Washout Testing, which monitored athletes' drug clearance rates to ensure they would test clean during competitions.
The AIU issued a Notice of Allegation against Antyukh in May 2019, citing evidence from the McLaren Reports, particularly the Moscow Washout Schedules, which listed her samples as containing prohibited substances like methasterone and boldenone. Antyukh denied the claims, arguing the evidence was unreliable and based on unverified data from Grigory Rodchenkov, whose credibility she questioned. She demanded original analytical and LIMS data to prove her innocence, asserting she had never provided unofficial samples or been part of any privileged doping lists. The case proceeded to CAS, where a sole arbitrator ruled against Antyukh in April 2021, finding her guilty of ADRVs under the 2013 Anti-Doping Rules. She received a four-year ban, and her competitive results from June 30, 2013, were disqualified, including forfeiting titles, medals, and prizes. Antyukh appealed the decision, filing a Statement of Appeal in May 2021.
The CAS panel found that the Moscow Washout Schedules, while generally reliable, did not conclusively link Antyukh to prohibited substances—her name was incomplete, lacked corroborating evidence, and did not prove actual use. Dr. Rodchenkov’s testimony was deemed unreliable as he never directly witnessed Antyukh using banned substances, his claims were not contemporaneous with the alleged violations, and some details did not match the substances listed in the schedules. The McLaren Reports, which investigated Russian doping, were also found insufficient as they did not personally implicate Antyukh or provide direct evidence of her violations. The panel concluded that the evidence was not sufficiently corroborated or convincing to meet the "comfortable satisfaction" standard. The Sole Arbitrator’s reliance on inference rather than direct proof was deemed inadequate, especially given the gravity of the charges.
Ultimately, the CAS panel found that the evidence presented—consisting of the Moscow Washout Schedules, Dr. Rodchenkov’s testimony, and the McLaren Reports—failed to convincingly prove that Antyukh knowingly engaged in doping. The decision underscores the necessity of robust, individualized proof in anti-doping cases, particularly when serious allegations are at stake. The panel partially upheld Antyukh's appeal, reducing the disqualification period to June 30, 2013, to December 31, 2015, citing exceptional circumstances such as the delay in issuing the Notice of Allegation and lack of evidence of subsequent doping. The four-year inelig