Kamila Valieva, a Russian figure skater, has embarked on a new legal challenge against the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) regarding her doping case. Her attorneys allege that WADA did not disclose and even altered critical evidence linked to her contamination defense during proceedings that led to her receiving a four-year suspension.
It was revealed last September that a secret experiment, conducted by scientist Martial Saugy at the behest of Russia’s anti-doping agency and connected through WADA, could have potentially supported Valieva’s claim of contamination. WADA had initially kept this experiment under wraps, raising concerns within the agency. Questions arose about why Saugy’s findings were so favorable to Valieva.
The undisclosed experiment examined the possibility that Valieva might have been contaminated through a strawberry smoothie prepared by her grandfather. This evidence was not presented during a five-day hearing at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in 2023. Following this revelation, Valieva’s legal team appealed to the Swiss Supreme Court, seeking access to details of the experiment.
Despite being granted access, Valieva’s attorneys assert that WADA was involved in “procedural fraud” by not disclosing the experiment to CAS. They argue that the agency’s actions undermined Valieva’s defense, preventing the potential cross-examination of Saugy, and altering the experiment’s report to make it less favorable to the skater. WADA, however, strongly denies any wrongdoing, with a spokesman stating that the report was not theirs to share.
The complexity of contamination cases like Valieva’s, which affected her participation in the 2022 Beijing Olympics, emphasizes the athlete’s need to prove accidental ingestion of banned substances. CAS arbitrators, nonetheless, dismissed the notion that Valieva had consumed the smoothie on a prolonged train journey due to its inherent implausibility. Saugy’s own report, which relied on recreated conditions of the smoothie preparation, suggested accidental ingestion was theoretically possible, yet he ultimately leaned toward intentional ingestion as the most plausible explanation.
Valieva’s legal team contends that alterations were made to Saugy’s report, omitting answers to key questions that could have been favorable to her case. They critique the addition of conclusions unrelated to the initial purpose of the appraisal, accusing that elements supportive of Valieva were deleted. Notably, it was one of several other cases scrutinizing WADA’s inconsistent responses to similar contamination defenses, particularly regarding Trimetazidine, which had been involved in a separate instance concerning 23 Chinese swimmers whose contamination claims were accepted.
At the heart of Valieva’s legal battle is the broader crisis in Russian sports, highlighting systemic cheating and subsequent non-compliance with international anti-doping regulations. This historical context has placed WADA in a delicate position, managing the consequences of unknown and clandestine experiments like Saugy’s. Internal communications within WADA have conveyed alarm about potential involvement in such evidence, underscoring the sensitivity and larger implications of Valieva’s case.