Guliyev Set to Lose Olympic Silver Medal

Image: Reuters

Former Russian 800-metres runner Ekaterina Guliyev’s upgraded second-place result from the London 2012 Olympic Games has been disqualified after the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) dismissed her appeal against a four-year doping ban.

In reaching its judgement, CAS upheld the decision to disqualify the 34-year-old’s results from 17 July 2012 to 20 October 2014, confirming the loss of her reallocated Olympic silver medal. Guliyev (formerly Poistogova), who now represents Turkey, finished third in the Olympic 800-metres final on 11 August 2012 but her position was upgraded to silver after the original gold medallist – her former Russian team-mate, Mariya Savinova – was disqualified in 2017 for doping. That elevated South Africa’s Caster Semenya to gold and Guliyev to silver.

Kenya’s Pamela Jelimo is now poised to be upgraded to silver and USA’s Alysia Montano to bronze.

World Athletics and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) are now proceeding with the next steps: World Athletics’ Competition Department disqualifying Guliyev’s results and thereafter notifying the IOC that World Athletics has modified the relevant results and rankings on their website. The IOC may then proceed with the reallocation of Olympic medals and the update of the IOC database.

Based on CAS’ decision, Guliyev has many other results at Diamond League, IAAF World Challenges and European level to be disqualified, including victories at the Düsseldorf International and Birmingham Aviva Indoor Grand Prix (both in February 2013); the Oslo Bislett Games and the Meeting International Mohammed VI d'Athletisme de Rabat (both in June 2013); the Zagreb IAAF World Challenge (September 2013); and the European Team Championships (June 2014). She also finished second at the Athletissima Lausanne in July 2014.

The case stemmed from McLaren/LIMS evidence arising from an exhaustive investigation into Russia’s anti-doping practices, in the wake of the well-publicised Russian doping scandal. The scheme, described as “sophisticated and systemic”, in part involved washout testing, a process which allowed an athlete who had been doping to know in advance whether he or she would test positive in-competition. This was employed prior to the London 2012 Olympic Games.

In the Arbitral Award, CAS said it was “of the clear view that World Athletics has established, to the Panel’s comfortable satisfaction, that the Athlete committed a violation of Rule 32.2 of the 2012 Rules by using the prohibited substances, ATD (androsta-1,4,6-triene-3, 17-dione) and boldenone”, and agreed that “in light of the severity and multiplicity” of the aggravating circumstances, that a four-year ban was warranted (four years being the applicable period for a case of aggravating circumstances under the rules at the time).

AIU Chair David Howman said the ruling underscored the organisation’s relentless persistence in pursuing harsh bans for offenders, even years after their violation.

“Our commitment to concluding these cases sends a resolute message that athletes who cheat will be held accountable. It should also be a reminder to potential dopers that there are significant consequences to their actions once they are caught,” he stressed.

Guliyev had appealed the CAS decision handed down on 28 March last year, which found that she had committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) according to Rule 32.2 (b), resulting in a four-year ban. The appeal surrounded two out-of-competition doping samples collected 17 July 2012 and 25 July 2012 and while both were negative at the time, World Athletics subsequently in 2022 notified Guliyev of a “potential” ADRV using LIMS evidence, upon which the eventual four-year ban was based.

Guliyev also argued that World Athletics could not bring the proceedings because the issue had already been adjudicated in her 2016 CAS decision, which resulted in a two-year ban. She noted it was “disappointing to see that World Athletics wishes to re-litigate the case”, using the “very same arguments and allegations”.

In response, World Athletics called Guliyev’s arguments “unattractive and opportunistic”, while contending the case was based on “substantial compelling evidence” which was only made available to them following the 2016 judgement. The Panel concluded by majority there was no link between the 2016 case and the current appeal, and that the arguments put forward by World Athletics were not inadmissible.

ARBITRAL AWARD: https://bit.ly/Guliyev-arbitral-award