The case involves Russian Olympic athlete Aleksandr Krushelnickii, who tested positive for meldonium, a prohibited substance, during the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics. The World Curling Federation (WCF) brought the case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Anti-Doping Division after Krushelnickii's samples from February 12 and 13, 2018, confirmed the presence of meldonium. While Krushelnickii initially contested the findings, he later accepted the results but argued for reduced sanctions under the "No Fault or Negligence" principle, suggesting possible sabotage or contamination. The CAS panel, led by Sole Arbitrator Judge Mark Williams, emphasized the strict liability principle in anti-doping cases, where the burden of proof initially lies with the WCF to establish a violation to the "comfortable satisfaction" standard. The athlete must then prove the source of the prohibited substance or lack of intent on a balance of probabilities.
Krushelnickii claimed the meldonium entered his system without his knowledge, possibly through tampered food or drink in the Olympic Village. He presented circumstantial evidence, including polygraph tests and expert testimony, to support his innocence. However, the panel found his claims speculative and insufficient, noting the lack of concrete evidence such as surveillance footage or credible witnesses. The panel also dismissed the polygraph results as unreliable under Swiss law, emphasizing the need for comprehensive evidence to substantiate sabotage claims. Expert testimony from Professor Ivars Kalvins, the inventor of meldonium, and Dr. Douwe de Boer indicated that the substance had no performance-enhancing benefits in curling and could have been surreptitiously administered. Despite this, the panel concluded that Krushelnickii failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold required to prove sabotage or lack of intent.
The WCF sought a four-year ban, while Krushelnickii argued for dismissal or a reduced penalty, citing his clean record and the disproportionate impact of a lengthy suspension on his career. The panel upheld the violation, disqualifying his Olympic results, forfeiting his bronze medal, and imposing a four-year ineligibility period starting from February 12, 2018. The decision underscored the stringent nature of anti-doping regulations, where athletes bear responsibility for prohibited substances in their bodies unless they can convincingly demonstrate an innocent explanation. The case highlights the challenges athletes face in contesting doping allegations, particularly when relying on circumstantial evidence, and reinforces the anti-doping framework's commitment to maintaining fair competition. The ruling also reflects the evolution of the World Anti-Doping Code, which has increasingly prioritized strict penalties to deter doping, leaving little room for leniency based on proportionality or exceptional circumstances.