The case involves Ukrainian race walker Nazar Kovalenko, who was declared ineligible to compete in the Tokyo 2020 Olympics due to non-compliance with World Athletics (WA) Anti-Doping Rules (AD Rules). Specifically, Rule 15 mandates that athletes from high-risk doping federations (Category A) undergo at least three out-of-competition tests in the ten months preceding major events like the Olympics. Ukraine’s Athletics Federation (UAF) was classified as Category A, requiring strict adherence to these testing requirements. Kovalenko, who had previously served a three-year suspension for an anti-doping violation (2017–2020), participated in several competitions after his return but underwent only in-competition tests until June 2021, when he qualified for the Olympics. The UAF failed to ensure he met the mandatory out-of-competition testing requirements, despite reminders from the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU). Kovalenko argued that his late qualification constituted an "exceptional circumstance" warranting exemption, but the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel rejected this, stating that late qualification is common and exempting it could undermine anti-doping efforts.
The CAS panel upheld the ineligibility ruling, emphasizing that the three key elements of a sanction—adverse consequences, punitive intent, and misconduct—were met. It also ruled that eligibility rules, unlike disciplinary sanctions, cannot be assessed for proportionality, as their purpose is to ensure fair competition and restore trust in athletics. The decision reinforced the importance of federations adhering to testing obligations, particularly for high-risk categories, to maintain integrity in sports. The panel concluded that Kovalenko’s exclusion was justified under WA’s framework, and no exceptional circumstances excused the testing shortfall.
Kovalenko filed an application with the CAS Ad Hoc Division on 1 August 2021, challenging the AIU's decision. The panel, composed of Ms. Carine Dupeyron, Ms. Yasna Stavreva, and Mr. Manfred Nan, held a hearing on 3 August 2021. Kovalenko raised objections regarding procedural fairness, including the limitation of his right to cross-examine the AIU's representative and unequal pleading time. The panel addressed these concerns by granting Kovalenko additional rebuttal time and limiting the AIU representative's role, ensuring procedural fairness. The parties' submissions centered on whether Kovalenko's exclusion was justified under WA AD Rule 15. Kovalenko argued that the testing requirements were not met due to unforeseen circumstances, while the AIU maintained that no exceptions applied. The CAS panel carefully considered all arguments and evidence before rendering its decision on 5 August 2021, upholding the AIU's ruling that Kovalenko was ineligible for the Olympics due to non-compliance with mandatory testing protocols.
Kovalenko further contended that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial, as he was never informed about the requirements of WA AD Rule 15.5.1(c), despite the rule mandating that athletes receive written notice by 1 January each year. He explained that he was not considered a likely Olympic candidate at the time notifications were due, leaving him unaware of the testing requirements. Additionally, he criticized the AIU for not allowing him to present his case or explain exceptional circumstances that might have justified an exemption from the rule. The panel rejected these arguments, noting that the rule's strict application was necessary to maintain the integrity of anti-doping efforts and that late qualification did not constitute an exceptional circumstance.
The panel also dismissed Kovalenko's claim that the COVID-19 pandemic hindered testing, citing evidence that the pandemic had not significantly impacted doping controls in the preceding months. The decision underscored that the ineligibility resulted from the UAF's failure to meet testing obligations, not the athlete's personal wrongdoing. Ultimately, the CAS Ad Hoc Division upheld the AIU's decision, confirming Kovalenko's ineligibility for the Tokyo 2020 Olympics. The ruling reinforced the importance of strict adherence to anti-doping regulations to ensure fairness and trust in competitive athletics. The case highlights the challenges athletes face in meeting eligibility criteria for major competitions and the stringent enforcement of anti-doping rules, even when administrative oversights by federations are at fault.