CAS 2018/A/5520 Svetlana Karamasheva v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) & All Russia Athletic Federation (ARAF)
Related case:
CAS 2017/O/5268 International Association of Athletics Federations (lAAF) v. All Russia Athletie Federation (ARAF) & Svetlana Karamasheva
- Athletics (middle distance)
- Doping (Athlete Biological Passport (ABP))
- ABP as reliable and accepted means of evidence
- Requirement to invalidate ABP results
- Timeframe for analysis of samples under IAAF Blood Testing Protocol
1. The Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) has been generally accepted as a reliable and accepted means of evidence to assist in establishing Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRV). In case an athlete does not succeed in establishing an acceptable pathological, physiological, environmental or similar explanation for the abnormalities established by the results of the ABP, an ADRV is established.
2. According to the IAAF Competition Rules, establishing, on the balance of probabilities, a departure from the ABP testing protocol does not invalidate an analytical result or negate an abnormality in the ABP, unless the athlete can also demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that this departure could reasonably have caused the abnormality in the ABP. I.e. the Athlete has a two pronged burden: (i) to establish the departure from the testing or analytical guidelines and (ii) to establish that the departure(s) could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding. In case the athlete succeeds in meeting this burden of proof, the IAAF is still entitled to demonstrate that the departure did not cause the abnormality.
3. The IAAF Blood Testing Protocol, stipulating that blood samples for screening purposes should be analysed as soon as possible and, in any event, within thirty-six (36) hours of sample collection, contains a recommendation of an ideal period from sampling to analysis, but does not mandate it.
In April 2017 the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian Athlete Svetlana Karamasheva after an IAAF expert panel concluded unanimously in February 2017 in their Joint Expert Opinion that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that she used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping.
This conclusion of the IAAF expert panel was based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 4 July 2012 until 14 November 2016 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).
Previously the Athlete submitted an explanation to the IAAF about the circumstances surrounding the collected samples. However after consideration the expert panel rejected the Athlete’s explanations in their second and third joint reports, issued in May and in July 2017.
In the first Instance case with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against the Athlete (CAS 2017/O/5268) the Athlete denied blood doping and contended that the abnormalities in her ABP samples resulted from her miscarriage, her pregnancy, high altitude training and/or a rotavirus. Also the Athlete argued that there was a departure from the ABP testing protocol.
The CAS first instance Sole Arbitrator (CAS 2017/O/5268) accepted that the Athlete’s ABP profile constitutes satisfactory evidence that the Athlete had committed the anti-doping rule violation and the Athlete failed to demonstrate an acceptable pathological or environmental explanation for the abnormal blood values. Also the Sole Arbitrator was satisfied that the taking and testing of the samples complied with the relevant testing protocols.
Therefore CAS decided on 20 December 2017 to impose a period of ineligibility of 2½ years on the Athlete starting from 7 June 2017. The Athlete’s competitive results were disqualified from and including 14 July 2012 until 6 August 2014.
Hereafter in January 2018 the Athlete appealed the CAS first instance decision (CAS 2017/O/5268) with the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division and requested the Panel to annul the CAS first instance decision.
The Athlete denied that she committed an anti-doping rule violation and supported by an expert witness she argued that the test result should be set aside due to several irregularities in the sampling process and in the chain of custody. Further the Athlete disputed the reliability of the testing results and the findings in the joint reports of the IAAF expert panel.
Based on the evidence the Panel concludes that the Athlete committed numerous anti-doping rule violations and that she failed to offer an acceptable pathological or environmental explanation for the abnormalities in her ABP. Also the Athlete did not meet her burden to establish on the balance of probabilities that her complaints amounted to departures from the sampling or analytical processes.
In the absence of any relevant explanation or departure, the anti-doping rule violations are established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel. The Sole Arbitrator was therefore entirely right to find in the Challenged Decision that the Athlete was guilty of blood doping.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 January 2019 that:
1.) The appeal filed by Ms Svetlana Olegovna Karamasheva on 7 January 2018 against the decision rendered on 20 December 2017 by a first instance decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport is dismissed.
2.) The first instance decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport rendered on 20 December 2017 in the case relating to Ms Svetlana Olegovna Karamasheva is confirmed and upheld in full.
3.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determindedand served separately to the Parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by Ms Svetlana Olegovna Karamasheva.
4.) Ms Svetlana Olegovna Karamasheva is ordered to pay the International Association of Athletics Federations the amount of CHF 3,000 (three thousand Swiss Francs) as contribution towards the International Association of Athletics Federations' fees and expenses sustained in relation with the present appeal. All Russia Athletic Federation (ARAF) shall bear any costs it may have sustained in relation with the present appeal.
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
