CAS explained why it disqualified figure skater Kamila Valieva

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has published the reasons for its decision in the case of figure skater Kamila Valieva, who was disqualified for four years due to a positive doping test. It follows from the document that the athlete’s representatives claimed that the prohibited drug entered her body along with the strawberry dessert. However, they failed to convince the court of this.

As you know, last week the Court of Arbitration for Sport disqualified Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva for four years due to a positive doping test taken on December 21, 2021 during the Russian Championship in St. Petersburg. The banned drug trimetazidine was found in it. Now CAS has published the reasoning part of the decision (.pdf). The decision states that the athlete’s positive doping test contained ecdysterone, trimetazidine and hypoxene.

The positive test became known during the Beijing Olympics, in February 2022, after the Russian team, largely thanks to Valieva, won gold in the team tournament. International Skating Union already deprived Russians for this award. The outcome of the long and complex doping process has caused a wave of indignation in Russian sports and political circles, which consider the punishment to be unfair or at least too harsh.

A four-year disqualification (de facto, its period is counted from the moment the sample is taken and expires in 2025), essentially means the end of the career of the famous athlete.

Meanwhile, the motivational part of the loud verdict turned out to be quite short and succinct. There are two very interesting points in it. The first is the version released by CAS, which was adhered to by the athlete’s side, which tried to prove the lack of intent in her actions. As it turned out, Kamila Valieva claimed that ecdysterone (CAS indicates that it “can potentially help improve heart function”) entered her body after eating a strawberry dessert that her grandfather prepared on the cutting board on which he used to crush his medications (pills) containing the drug.

However, the arbitrators decided that this explanation “was not supported by any specific evidence and that the Athlete was unable to establish that she committed an anti-doping violation unintentionally.”

The second point follows from the first. Due to the fact that Kamila Valieva failed to provide evidence of a lack of intent in committing the violation, CAS did not consider it possible to “treat her differently than as an adult athlete.” In other words, because of this, the court did not take into account the fact that at the time of the Olympics Valieva was not yet 16 years old and she had the status of a “protected person.” This status provides for the possibility of a radical softening of sanctions compared to usual ones – up to a warning instead of disqualification in the case of “insignificant” guilt.

Alexey Dospehov