The case involves Russian boxer Misha Aloian, who won a silver medal in the Men’s -52 kg event at the 2016 Rio Olympics but later tested positive for Tuaminoheptane, a prohibited stimulant under the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) sought his disqualification, forfeiture of his medal, and related sanctions through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Anti-Doping Division. Aloian admitted the violation but argued against disqualification, citing exceptional circumstances. He claimed he used Rhinofluimucil, a medication containing Tuaminoheptane, for chronic rhinosinusitis under his team doctor’s advice and stopped using it 24 hours before competition, believing it would clear his system. Scientific evidence, however, indicated the substance could remain detectable longer. Aloian asserted he acted in good faith without intent to enhance performance and referenced precedents where athletes retained results due to no fault or negligence. He also invoked the principle of proportionality, arguing disqualification would be unjust.
The Sole Arbitrator, Prof. Michael Geistlinger, ruled that Article 9 of the IOC Anti-Doping Rules mandates automatic disqualification regardless of fault, negligence, or performance-enhancing effects. While the principle of proportionality was considered, Aloian’s case did not meet the threshold for the "rarest cases" where disqualification might be waived. The decision emphasized athletes’ personal responsibility to ensure no prohibited substances enter their bodies, including verifying medical advice. Despite Aloian’s reliance on outdated information from his doctor, the arbitrator upheld the disqualification, annulling his results and requiring forfeiture of his medal.
The case underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations, where athletes bear ultimate responsibility for substances in their bodies, even unintentionally. While Aloian’s circumstances were sympathetic, the ruling reinforced the consistent and strict application of anti-doping rules to maintain fairness in sport. The decision highlighted the limited exceptions to automatic disqualification, emphasizing that only the most extraordinary cases might warrant deviation.
Aloian also referenced the Nicklas Backstrom case and a WADA notice on Meldonium, suggesting disqualification might not be necessary for low dosages. The IOC countered that disqualification is mandatory under Article 9, distinguishing Backstrom’s case as involving a team sport without specific disqualification rules. The IOC dismissed the WADA notice’s relevance, arguing the presence of a prohibited substance necessitates disqualification. A hearing in Lausanne confirmed the CAS Anti-Doping Division’s jurisdiction, applying the IOC ADR, Swiss law, and general legal principles. The arbitrator noted the proceedings were governed by CAS ADD Rules and Swiss Private International Law.
The legal framework centered on Article 2 of the IOC ADR, which defines anti-doping violations and imposes strict liability on athletes for prohibited substances in their samples. The arbitrator’s task was to determine whether disqualification applied, balancing strict liability with appeals for proportionality. The decision ultimately reinforced the strict enforcement of anti-doping regulations, disqualifying Aloian’s results and requiring the return of his medal, diploma, and pin. The International Boxing Association and the Russian Olympic Committee were instructed to update the results and ensure compliance. The ruling concluded by granting the IOC’s application, emphasizing the consequences of the violation and the steps needed to rectify the situation. The case highlights the tension between strict liability and fairness, reaffirming the stringent application of anti-doping rules to preserve competitive integrity.