In our practice, such cases always require a highly nuanced approach to expert opinions, statistical deviations, and the limits of permissible interpretation of data. And the deeper one delves into the case materials, the more очевидним it becomes: the key issue lies not only in science, but also in the procedural safeguards of the athlete.
The “Bulletin of the Odesa Bar” (No. 1/2026) has published an article by the team of Juris Ferrum Law Firm titled “The Legal Nature and Limits of the Use of the Athlete Biological Passport in Doping Disputes.”
Authors:
📘 Ganna Gnizdovska — PhD in Law, Attorney, Managing Partner of Juris Ferrum Law Firm
📘 Yana Kovalova — Lawyer at Juris Ferrum Law Firm
🔎 What we cover:
🔹 ABP as an independent form of evidence in doping cases
The practice of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) recognizes that a violation may be established solely on the basis of atypical values within the biological passport. This means that the absence of a positive sample does not exclude liability. At the same time, such a framework requires a heightened standard of expert analysis and strict procedural compliance.
🔹 Statistical probability and the standard of proof are not identical concepts
The ABP is based on mathematical models assessing variations in biological indicators. However, in the legal context, the key benchmark is the “comfortable satisfaction” standard — the panel’s inner conviction based on the totality of evidence. This raises a critical question: where is the boundary between scientific probability and sufficient evidence for imposing a long-term sanction on an athlete?
🔹 The limits of ABP use are defined by procedural safeguards
Any violations in testing procedures, data interpretation, or the work of expert panels may undermine the conclusions reached. Moreover, the athlete has the right to explain the deviations by referring to the physiological characteristics of their body. The anti-doping system cannot transform a statistical model into a de facto presumption of guilt.
Modern doping cases are no longer limited to laboratories and samples. They involve science, algorithms, and complex evidentiary structures.
At the same time, they concern an athlete’s career, reputation, and the right to a fair hearing.
We are convinced: the more complex the evidence becomes, the higher the standards must be for its legal assessment.
📖 Full text available in the “Bulletin of the Odesa Bar” (No. 1/2026).