The case involves an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding an anti-doping rule violation by Russian biathlete Ekaterina Glazyrina, initiated by the International Biathlon Union (IBU). The sole arbitrator, Petra Pocrnic Perica, ruled on the matter on 21 March 2022, addressing jurisdiction, procedural fairness, provisional measures, and the proportionality of sanctions. The CAS Anti-Doping Division (ADD) had jurisdiction under Article A2 of its rules, as the IBU had formally delegated its adjudicatory powers to the CAS ADD. The arbitration agreement's validity was confirmed under Swiss law, specifically the Swiss Federal Statute on Private International Law (PILA), which requires written agreements for jurisdiction. The CAS ADD's independence from sports governing bodies was emphasized, ensuring impartiality. The parties had the right to appoint arbitrators, enhancing procedural fairness compared to traditional disciplinary committees.
The case centered on allegations that Glazyrina used prohibited substances, including metenolone, oxandrolone, and ostarine, based on evidence from manipulated data in the Moscow Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). The IBU argued that Glazyrina was part of a state-sponsored doping scheme in Russia, where positive test results were systematically concealed. The evidence included discrepancies between the 2015 and 2019 LIMS databases, forensic reports, and whistleblower testimonies. The IBU sought sanctions, including disqualification of results and an additional one-year ineligibility period due to aggravating circumstances. Glazyrina contested the jurisdiction of the CAS ADD, arguing that the arbitrator list lacked independence and impartiality under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). She also challenged the reliability of the evidence, claiming it was circumstantial and insufficient to prove the violations.
The Sole Arbitrator dismissed Glazyrina's jurisdictional objections, affirming the CAS ADD's authority and procedural fairness. The arbitrator also rejected her request to lift the provisional suspension, noting that such measures protect the integrity of competition, especially in cases involving repeated violations. The standard of proof applied was "comfortable satisfaction," a balance between probability and beyond reasonable doubt, considering the seriousness of the allegations. The arbitrator found the evidence reliable, concluding that Glazyrina had used metenolone, a prohibited substance, based on consistent data from multiple sources. However, claims regarding oxandrolone and ostarine were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
Under the IBU Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) 2012, a first violation typically results in a two-year ineligibility period. However, Glazyrina had previously served a two-year sanction for another violation in 2013. The arbitrator determined that the violations occurred within an eight-year period, qualifying as multiple violations under Article 10.7.5, which mandates stricter sanctions. Aggravating circumstances, including the use of prohibited substances on multiple occasions, justified an increased sanction. The arbitrator imposed an additional one-year ineligibility period, commencing from the date of her provisional suspension (23 September 2020), and disqualified all competitive results from 19 September 2013 to 18 December 2013, including forfeiture of medals, points, and prizes.
The decision underscores the challenges of proving doping violations in cases involving data manipulation and systemic cover-ups. It highlights the importance of robust evidence, forensic analysis, and whistleblower protections in anti-doping enforcement. The ruling reinforces the CAS's role in ensuring fair and independent adjudication, balancing athletes' rights with the need to maintain the integrity of sports competitions. The case also reflects the broader context of systemic doping in Russian sports, as revealed by investigations like the McLaren Reports, and the ongoing efforts to address such violations. The decision serves as a reminder of the severe consequences of anti-doping rule violations, including disqualification of results and extended ineligibility periods.