IBU 2016 IBU vs Ekatrina Glazyrina

Ms. Ekaterina Glazyrina is a Russian athlete who participated in several biathlon events between 2013 and 2014 and she competed at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games.

Two reports commissioned by WADA, published by Prof Richard McLaren as Independent Person (IP) on 18 July 2016 and 9 December 2016, showed detailed evidences of organised manipulation of some Russian samples collected prior and during the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games. The IP reports describe how urine bottles were opened and urine was switched with clean modified urine coming from a “biobank”, and how urine density had to be adjusted to match that recorded on the doping control form (if different at the time of collection) by adding salt to the sample.

As a result of the McLaren Reports the International Biathlon Union (IBU) was informed by WADA that 3 of the Athlete’s samples that previously had been reported negative in the ADAMS system by the Moscow laboratory had in fact been subjected to initial positive screening.

Hereafter in December 2016 the IBU reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for use of prohibited substances. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in her defence and she was heard for the IBU Anti-Doping Hearing Panel.

In this case the IBU mainly relied on the documentation available to it, including but, not limited to, the IP Report II and the supporting email communication, as well as the Doping Control Forms (DCFs) of the three doping controls in questions, the Laboratory Analysis Report for the Athlete’s samples and the laboratory profiles for these samples.

Also in December 2017 the IBU filed additional evidence against the Athlete that had become available to all International Federations as a result of WADA’s investigations and Intelligence Department (WADA I&I) sharing the findings of its “Operation LIMS” data; data which WADA supported with Affidavits to accentuate their reliability.

Operation LIMS offered data that had been recovered from reconstrucing the hard drive of the Moscow Laboratory after it had been seized and collating all the information that was contained in the Laboratory’s Information Management System (LIMS). The IBU Anti-Doping Hearing Panel admitted this new evidence

The Athlete denied having any responsibility for an alleged manipulation of her samples because she claimed her doping controls had been carried out in strict accordance with the rules. She also denied knowledge of “the mentioned substances” in this case, i.e. Metenolone, Oxandrolone and Trenbolone.

The Athlete asserted that initial screening findings did not provide conclusive scientific evidence of the presence of a prohibited substance in a urine sample. Rather, she relied on the opinion of Dr. Gmeiner which concluded that her data did not reveal any steroids. The Athlete explained that the laboratory Doc Packs that were sent and analysed by Dr. Gmeiner referred to internal code numbers and technical data as well as the time of the operation. They could not have been tampered with and were reliable.

The IBU requested the Panel to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility and contended that the evidence established that the Athlete had committed the anti-doping rule violation.

The IBU pointed to the fact that after the Athlete’s pulling out of the Oberhof World Cup at the last minute further to the laboratory’s directives because of the results of the initial screening of her 19 December sample, the Athlete then competed in a race on 8 January 2014 in Ruhpolding. Based on this timeline, IBU argued that the Athlete’s break until that event e.g. her non-paricipation in the World Cup event in Oberhof, covered the critical period during which she was at risk to test positive. She was tested on 6 January; it was negative; she could then compete.

The Panel considered the following main issues:
- Did the Athlete register for the Oberhof WC and pull out; or did she simply never enter? (She registered and pulled out at the last minute).
- Could the exact time sequence of sample collecion, initial screening, report to ADAMS and non-participation be clarified? (it was).
- The buccal ingesion of the Duchess Cocktail ingested (swirling the mixture in the mouth with alcohol as directed by Dr. Rodchenkov).
- The efects of the administration of steroids on competion performance and the excretion time of water soluble steroids.
- The “unknown” person who is included on the emails atached to the McLaren IP Report II (Is known by McLaren and WADA but protected under the WADA whisteblower policy);
- The time limit for last entries to the Sochi Games (re: 19 January 2014)
- The source of the Documentary Package laboratory reports (unknown).

The Panel considered the Athlete’s arguments and the overwhelming evidence in this case and concludes that the IBU has established to the Panel’s comfortable satisfaction that an anti-doping rule violation for use has been commited by Ekaterina Glazyrina.

The Panel holds that the McLaren Report and Evidence Disclosure Package (EDP) explained that the Athlete’s initial screening procedures showed quantities of Oxandrolone, Trenbolone and Metelonone, and the LIMS data supports these analyical findings by way of providing actual concentrations. This evidence on its own allows is convincing.

Further the Panel is comfortably convinced that the Athlete has used Metenolone, Oxandrolone and Trenbolone on the basis of the Athlete pulling out of the Oberhof WC, the “save” order, the “hide” order, the excretion rates of the Duchess Cocktail, the return to competition and the contextual situation with regards to doping in Russian biathlon at the time.

While the Athlete has adamantly denied knowledge of these prohibited substances, the Panel need not contemplate if the Athlete knew she was doping or intended to because intent or even knowledge of the use of prohibited substance is not necessary to establish than an ADRV occurred under Art. 2.2 IBU ADR. According to Art. 2.2.1 IBU ADR, the mere use of a prohibited substance, which in this case has been proven by the evidence on file, is sufficient.

Therefore the IBU Anti-Doping Hearing Panel decides on 24 April 2018 that:

l.) Ms. Ekaterina Glazyrina is guilty of an anti-doping rule violation for "use" of a prohibited substance, according to Article 2.2 IBU ADR.
2.) Ms. Ekaterina Glazyrina is ineligible to compete for a period of two years from the date of this decision with the period of the provisional suspension already served credited.
3.) All competitive results obtained by Ms. Ekaterina Glazyrina in the competitions she participated in from 19 December 2013 through to 10 February 2017 are disqualified with all resulting consequences for medals, points and prizes.

show »
Type:
pdf

Parameters:

Legal
Decisions International Federations
Date:
24 April 2018
Arbitrator
Soublire, Janie
Vedder, Christophe
Source
International Biathlon Union (IBU)
Country
Russian Federation
Language
English
ADRV
Use
Legal Terms
Burdens and Standards of Proof
Case law / jurisprudence
Circumstantial evidence
Digital evidence
Independent Person Investigation
Sport/IFs
Biathlon (IBU) - International Biathlon Union
Other organisations
Center of Sports Preparation of National Teams of Russia (CSP)
World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)
Российское антидопинговое агентство (РУСАДА) - Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA)
Laboratories
Moscow, Russia: Antidoping Centre Moscow [*]
Seibersdorf, Austria: Seibersdorf Labor GmbH Doping Control Laboratory
Doping classes
S1. Anabolic Agents
Substances
Metenolone
Oxandrolone
Trenbolone (17β-hydroxyestr-4,9,11-trien-3-one)
Various
ADAMS
Anti-Doping Investigation
Disappearing Positive Methodology
Disqualified competition results
Doping Control
Doping culture
McLaren Report
Pretesting
Washout Schedule
Document type
pdf
Category
  • Legal
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin