CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10938 — Iryna Popova v. Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI)

"Popova" · CAS upheld a four-year ban for ABP doping but reduced result disqualification from 2016 to 14 May 2022 on fairness grounds.

What happened in Popova

Ukrainian professional mountain bike cyclist Iryna Popova was found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) under Article 2.2 UCI ADR 2015 based on abnormalities in her Athlete Biological Passport (ABP). Six of eight blood samples collected between August 2016 and August 2022 showed abnormal haemoglobin, reticulocyte percentage, and OFF-score values. A three-expert panel unanimously concluded across three separate opinions that the abnormalities were highly likely caused by an erythropoietic stimulant or blood transfusion, rejecting the athlete's explanations of PCOS, Covid-19, training stress, and war-related psychological stress. The UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal imposed a four-year ban commencing 20 September 2024 and disqualified all results from 17 August 2016. On appeal, CAS upheld the ADRV and the four-year ineligibility period but, invoking the fairness principle in Article 10.8 UCI ADR 2015, reduced the disqualification start date to 14 May 2022 (the first 2022 sample). The panel reasoned that the 2016 sample was an isolated data point nearly six years before the cluster of 2022 samples, and that maintaining disqualification from 2016 would produce a de facto total ineligibility exceeding 12 years—three times the maximum four-year ban—which was disproportionate in the circumstances.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10938

In January 2023, the APMU identified abnormalities in six of eight ABP samples taken between 17 August 2016 and 24 August 2022. A three-expert panel issued three successive opinions (February 2023, May 2023, and during first-instance proceedings) consistently finding doping highly likely. On 20 June 2023, UCI formally asserted an ADRV and imposed a provisional suspension. The Appellant rejected the offered Acceptance of Consequences. On 9 November 2023, UCI petitioned the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal. After a videoconference hearing on 20 June 2024, the Tribunal issued its decision on 20 September 2024: four-year ineligibility from that date, disqualification of all results from 17 August 2016, and costs of CHF 2,500 plus EUR 1,515 payable to UCI. Popova filed her Statement of Appeal with CAS on 15 October 2024 and her Appeal Brief on 25 October 2024. A CAS hearing was held by videoconference on 20 May 2025.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10938

• The ABP is a scientifically valid and reliable means of establishing an ADRV under Article 3.2.1 UCI ADR 2015, and a challenge to its validity requires prior notification to WADA as a condition precedent.
• Neither the ABP Operating Guidelines nor CAS jurisprudence prescribes a minimum number of blood samples required to establish an ADRV; six abnormal samples spanning six years constituted a sufficiently robust dataset.
• The Expert Panel's three opinions comprehensively and holistically considered the athlete's gender, PCOS, Covid-19, training stress, and war-related psychological stress, and none of those factors—individually or in combination—explained the observed abnormalities.
• The applicable limitation period under Article 17 UCI ADR 2015 is ten years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred, not eight years as the Appellant claimed, and the present proceedings were commenced within that period.
• The fairness principle in Article 10.8 UCI ADR 2015 justified limiting result disqualification to 14 May 2022, because extending it to the isolated 2016 sample would produce a de facto total ineligibility exceeding 12 years—three times the maximum four-year ban.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel applied the tempus regit actum principle and Article 27.2 UCI ADR 2021 to confirm that UCI ADR 2015 governed the substantive issues, as the first relevant sample was collected in 2016. On the ADRV, the panel was comfortably satisfied by five layers of expert assessment—an initial independent review plus three written Expert Panel opinions plus oral testimony—all unanimously finding doping highly likely. The panel rejected the challenge to ABP as a method because the Appellant had not notified WADA as required by Article 3.2.1 UCI ADR 2015, and because CAS jurisprudence (CAS 2019/A/6254; CAS 2018/A/5520; CAS 2017/O/5398) consistently affirms ABP's reliability. Arguments about insufficient samples, collection frequency, and absence of urine testing were dismissed as unsupported by the applicable guidelines and contradicted by the evidence, including a table showing urine samples were in fact taken alongside five of the six abnormal blood samples. Human rights claims were rejected as inadequately substantiated and, in any event, cured by the de novo CAS procedure. On sanction, the panel upheld the four-year ban but invoked Article 10.8's fairness exception and CAS 2023/O/9401 and CAS 2021/A/7839 & 8012 to trim disqualification to 14 May 2022, noting the 2016 sample was an isolated data point and the athlete appeared to be in financial hardship.

Why Popova matters in CAS jurisprudence

Popova is notable for two reasons the award itself highlights: first, it reaffirms that ABP-based ADRVs require no minimum sample count and that a challenge to ABP's scientific validity is procedurally barred without prior WADA notification under Article 3.2.1 UCI ADR 2015. Second, it extends the line of CAS authority (CAS 2023/O/9401; CAS 2021/A/7839 & 8012) holding that the fairness principle in Article 10.8 can curtail retroactive disqualification where a single isolated sample from years before a doping cluster would otherwise produce a total de facto ban exceeding three times the maximum ineligibility period.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2022/A/9033 CAS 2022/A/8651 CAS 2019/A/6254 CAS 2018/A/5520 CAS 2019/A/6226 CAS 2017/O/5398

Frequently asked questions about Popova

Why did CAS reduce Popova's disqualification period if it upheld the four-year ban?

The panel found that maintaining disqualification from 17 August 2016 would create a de facto total ineligibility exceeding 12 years—three times the maximum four-year ban under UCI ADR 2015—because disqualification of results is treated as a retroactive ineligibility period under CAS jurisprudence. Invoking the fairness principle expressly referenced in Article 10.8 UCI ADR 2015 and citing CAS 2023/O/9401 and CAS 2021/A/7839 & 8012, the panel limited disqualification to 14 May 2022, the date of the first 2022 sample, noting the 2016 sample was an isolated data point nearly six years before the cluster of abnormal values.

Did Popova's PCOS, Covid-19, and war-related stress excuse the ABP abnormalities?

No. The Expert Panel addressed each factor across three separate written opinions and confirmed in oral testimony that none of them—individually or in combination—explained the observed abnormalities. The Second Expert Opinion specifically concluded that 'the likelihood of the profile considering COVID19, the absence of positive urine test, training or emotional stress (alone or in combination) is low,' and the Third Expert Opinion found that PCOS was 'highly unlikely to have caused the abnormalities of the profile.' CAS found no basis to disturb those conclusions.

Was the Popova case time-barred given that the first blood sample was from 2016?

No. Article 17 UCI ADR 2015 sets a ten-year limitation period from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred, not eight years as the Appellant claimed. The ADRV was formally asserted against Popova on 20 June 2023, fewer than ten years after the first sample was collected on 17 August 2016, so the proceedings were commenced within the applicable limitation period.

Can an athlete challenge the ABP as a statistical method without notifying WADA first?

No. Article 3.2.1 UCI ADR 2015 provides that analytical methods approved by WADA, including the ABP, are presumed scientifically valid, and any athlete seeking to rebut that presumption must first notify WADA of the challenge as a condition precedent. In Popova, the panel found the Appellant had not demonstrated fulfilment of that condition, rendering her challenge to the ABP model procedurally inadmissible. The panel also declined to notify WADA on its own initiative given the lack of substantiation in the Appellant's arguments.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.