The CAS Response to WADA Claims on Trimethazidine and the Valieva Case
The Court of Arbitration for Sport has questioned the strength of the World Anti-Doping Agency’s assertion about the widespread use of trimetazidine in Russian sports. This stance was communicated in a CAS press release, where the agency aired its concerns about the evidence supporting a finding of deliberate use by athletes.
In the press release, it is noted that both WADA and the International Skating Union argued that, given the available material, it was highly probable that an athlete had intentionally used trimetazidine. Yet the CAS commission concluded that the issues presented in connection with this matter did not convince the panel. The ruling highlights the need for cautious interpretation of the evidence in anti doping proceedings and stresses that conclusions should not be drawn from incomplete or dated sources.
The CAS statement references Russian medical literature, which some had cited as showing trimetazidine was prescribed to young athletes. The commission counters this view, explaining that the cited documents are overstated and that the sources date back to 2010 and 2013. They should not be treated as an accurate reflection of current medical practice in Russia.
On February 7, CAS published the reasons for its decision in the Valieva doping case through its official platform. The governing body reports that Valieva claimed the banned substance entered her system via ingestion of contaminated food shortly before the Russian Championships. It is described that during a dessert prepared by her grandfather, a cutting board used to prepare his medications containing trimetazidine had been employed, potentially facilitating contamination.
Earlier, on January 29, CAS handed down a four-year suspension to Valieva for anti-doping rule violations linked to the presence of a prohibited substance in her blood. The sanction was set to commence in December 2021, reflecting the seriousness with which the organization addresses violations and the timelines that surround disciplinary actions within elite sport.
The case surrounding Valieva has previously been characterized by strong public interest and debate, with discussions often focusing on the interpretation of evidence, the integrity of testing procedures, and the fairness of sanctions in high profile doping cases. The broader context of these rulings illustrates the ongoing tension between safeguarding athletes’ rights and maintaining a clean competitive environment across international sport. In such complex matters, the interplay of scientific analysis, procedural rules, and institutional communications remains central to the process and to the perception of justice in sports governance.