The case of Anzhelika Kotiuga, a Belarusian speed skater, revolves around allegations of doping during the 2005 ISU World Cup Final. Kotiuga tested positive for prohibited substances, including norandrosterone (a metabolite of nandrolone) and abnormal levels of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). The initial findings by the Köln Laboratory indicated exogenous origins of these substances, suggesting doping rather than natural physiological causes. Kotiuga defended herself by claiming her pregnancy and subsequent medical treatment with mifepristone could explain the results, but experts dismissed this, stating pregnancy could not account for the high levels of exogenous norandrosterone. The Skating Union of Belarus initially ruled the violation unintentional, issuing only a warning, but the ISU appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the evidence did not support her claims.
The CAS panel examined scientific and medical evidence, including expert testimonies, and concluded Kotiuga’s pregnancy could not explain the exogenous substances. The laboratory confirmed the substances were consistent with doping, not medical treatment. The panel upheld the ISU’s appeal, emphasizing the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes are responsible for any prohibited substances in their bodies, regardless of intent. The case highlighted procedural disputes, including inconsistencies in testing documentation and the handling of samples, but the CAS found these did not invalidate the adverse findings. Kotiuga’s shifting defenses—from attributing the results to pregnancy to blaming her team doctor—further undermined her credibility.
Ultimately, the CAS imposed a two-year ban, disqualifying Kotiuga’s results from the 2005 World Cup Final and forfeiting her medals and prizes. The ruling reinforced the importance of rigorous scientific analysis in doping cases and the limited scope for medical exceptions. It also underscored the need for athletes to exercise caution with medications and supplements to avoid inadvertent violations. The decision affirmed the strict application of anti-doping rules and the high burden on athletes to prove exceptional circumstances for reduced sanctions.