In December 2021, at the Russian Figure Skating Championships, Kamila Valieva - a 15-year-old Russian figure skater - tested positive for the banned substance trimetazidine. Typically used to treat angina, Trimetazidine has been linked to increased athletic performance and was listed in the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) International Standard Prohibited List in 2021.
The results of the positive test were only revealed during the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, where Valieva had already competed and secured gold for the Russian Olympic Committee in the team event. Following a multi-year legal process, Valieva was stripped of her gold medal and banned from further competition in the sport for a period of four years.
Regulatory framework
The International Skating Union (ISU) enforces anti-doping measures based on WADA's code and ISU's regulations. The ISU is composed of national associations, including Russia's Figure Skating Federation (RFSF). By joining the ISU, national associations agree to be bound by its rules. In turn, Russian figure skaters are governed by the RFSF.
As part of ISU compliance requirements, Valieva personally signed the ISU's declaration for Competitors and Officials entering ISU events, acknowledging that she agreed to abide by the ISU Constitution, and that she recognised the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as the final authority over any potential disputes.
The doping investigation
On 25 December 2021, Valieva tested positive for a banned substance at the Russian National Championships, however, she was not notified of the result until 8 February 2022 - after the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics had begun. The Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) provisionally suspended Valieva, but after a preliminary hearing the Russian anti-doping tribunal held that Valieva inadvertently consumed trimetazidine and cleared her to compete. The CAS Ad-Hoc Division dismissed appeals from the International Olympic Committee, WADA and the ISU, allowing Valieva to continue participating at Beijing.
Following the Beijing games, both RUSADA and WADA conducted investigations into Valieva's anti-doping violation. In December 2022, Valieva submitted to a Russian anti-doping tribunal that trimetazidine had been unintentionally digested via food prepared on a cutting board that her grandfather used to prepare his medication. In January 2023 the tribunal ruled that Valieva bore no fault, and while she should be disqualified from the Russian National Championships, no sanction ought to be applied in respect of the Beijing Olympics.
Unsatisfied with the Russian anti-doping tribunal's decision, WADA and ISU appealed to CAS, arguing that a period of ineligibility should be applied and any results from the date of the positive test be voided. RUSADA also appealed to CAS but instead argued that Valieva should only be reprimanded.
CAS determined that Valieva would be banned from competing in the sport for four years, backdated to the day of the failed drug test, and annulled all competitive results from that date onwards, including her Olympic gold medal.
Intentionality of doping
An added complication to Valieva's case is her classification as a protected person – she was only 15 years old when she tested positive. The case raises the question of whether a minor should be subject to the same sanctions as an adult.
In its initial decision, RUSADA absolved Valieva based on her age. However, CAS ruled against considering age as an influential factor, arguing that all athletes must demonstrate a lack of intent to consume prohibited substances. In so doing, CAS has established a precedent that age doesn't mitigate responsibility under anti-doping regulations – an athlete's intention remains key, regardless of whether they hold protected status.
Navigating the regulatory landscape
This case serves as a reminder that athletes, and their support personnel, must ensure they sufficiently understand the totality of their legal obligations under anti-doping regulations, and the severe repercussions for non-compliance - including the significant and strictly applied sanctions alongside the complex (and at times lengthy) appeal processes which demand meticulous navigation.
It also highlights the importance of recognising the typically hierarchical structure that exists in the governance of international sport. While national anti-doping bodies like RUSADA initially make decisions, global governing bodies like WADA and sport-specific authorities like the ISU are likely to ensure that they can appeal those rulings to a final arbiter. Athletes need to be aware that by participating in certain events, they may be subjecting themselves to an entire framework of regulations and legal processes that extend far beyond just their national federation's rules. Thoroughly understanding this overarching legal structure and who has ultimate authority over sanctions is critical.
