The case involves Olga Pestova, a Russian rugby sevens player, who was found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) after testing positive for methylhexaneamine (MHA), a prohibited stimulant under the 2020 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List. The sample was collected on 4 October 2020, and the adverse analytical finding was confirmed by the Anti-Doping Laboratory of Seibersdorf, Austria. Pestova did not request a B-sample analysis. The Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) notified her of the violation, leading to a provisional suspension starting on 22 October 2020.
Pestova admitted the violation but argued that the MHA entered her system through a drink called "Melior," which she consumed on 2 October 2020. She claimed she had checked the ingredients on WADA’s website but failed to recognize a misspelled alternative name for MHA. She also cited a head injury sustained a week before the sample collection, which she alleged impaired her judgment. Medical evidence from Dr. Ekaterina Drozdova supported her claim of cognitive impairment, but RUSADA contested its reliability due to the lack of contemporaneous documentation.
The Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) initially imposed a two-year ineligibility period but reduced it to one year, considering the mitigating circumstances of her injury. Pestova appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking a further reduction to a reprimand with no ineligibility, arguing "no significant fault or negligence." RUSADA maintained that her fault was at least normal, warranting the one-year sanction.
The CAS Sole Arbitrator evaluated the case under the 2019 RUSADA Anti-Doping Rules (ARADR). While Pestova established that "Melior" was the source of MHA, the arbitrator found her conduct negligent. She had failed to thoroughly verify the drink’s ingredients, concealed her injury to continue playing, and did not consult anti-doping experts. Although her head injury might have affected her decision-making, the arbitrator concluded her fault was "normal" but at the lower end, justifying the 12-month sanction. The DADC’s decision was upheld, and the appeal dismissed.
The case underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and the high burden on athletes to prove mitigating circumstances. It also highlights the importance of athlete diligence in supplement use and the challenges in establishing reduced fault due to external factors like injuries. The final ruling emphasized that while Pestova’s injury was considered, her actions did not meet the threshold for further sanction reduction.