Fri, August 29, 2025
ITIA v Arslanbek Aitkulov
A decision in the case of International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) against Arslanbek Aitkulov has been issued by the Independent Panel.
On 10 January 2024, during the World Tennis Tour M15 tournament held in Doha, Qatar (the ‘Event’), Mr Aitkulov, a Kazakh professional tennis player, (the ‘Player’) provided an In-Competition urine Sample that resulted in an Adverse Analytical Finding. On 14 March 2024, the ITIA notified Mr Aitkulov that he may have committed Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADVRs) for the Presence of Metabolites of LGD-4033 (Ligandrol) and of 5-Methylhexan-2-amine (Methylhexanamine) in his A Sample. LGD-4033 is an anabolic agent which is listed in section S1.2 of the 2024 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited list. It is a non-Specified Substance and is prohibited In and Out of Competition. 5-Methylhexan-2-amine is a stimulant which is listed in section S6.B of the 2024 WADA Prohibited list. It is a Specified Substance and is prohibited In-Competition only. On 22 March 2024, the ITIA informed the Player by letter that an analysis of Sample B was conducted on 20 March 2024, which confirmed the finding reported for Sample A, namely the Presence of LGD-4033 and 5-Methylhexan-2-amine. The Player initially denied the possible ADVRs.
On 17 September 2024, the ITIA sent a Notice of Charge to Mr Aitkulov, notifying him that he was being charged with the commission of ADRVs on the basis that LGD-4033 and 5-Methylhexan-2-amine were found to be present in the Player’s urine Sample. The Player admitted the Charge and accepted that he was unable to prove the source of the Prohibited Substances in his system. However, he disputed the default Consequences as they are set out in the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP). The Player stressed that the ADRVs he committed were unintentional and it was submitted that he should be issued with a period of Ineligibility of two (2) years.
The hearing took place on 30 June 2025 and the Independent Tribunal was comprised of Mr Clifford Hendel, who was appointed to hear this matter sitting alone.
The Player argued that he was taking supplements purchased in Kazakhstan at the time of the test and suspected that contaminated supplements might be the source of the Prohibited Substances. In particular, with the supplement called Scivation Xtend Sport BCAAs despite being recommended by his coach and certified by the National Sanitation Foundation. The Player had used the same supplements at previous events where he tested negative and had every reason to believe the Sample would return a negative result. The Player further argued the possibility of contamination via the same supplements or food he consumed during the Event. Once the Player learned of the positive test results, he spent considerable time, effort, and money trying to establish the source, for instance by obtaining a toenail clipping analysis from an expert in the field.
As the Player admitted liability to the Charge, the only issue to be determined by the Independent Tribunal was in relation to sanction. The Independent Tribunal considered that the Player had recognised at the hearing that he was careless and lacked vigilance. He did not look at the WADA Prohibited List or conduct an online search of the ingredients of the substances, nor did he consult with a medical practitioner prior to taking the supplements. The Independent Tribunal further considered a professor’s report and testimony on behalf of the ITIA where it was submitted that the concentrations of both substances found in the Player’s urine Sample were quite high, and thus inconsistent with contamination. The Independent Tribunal was satisfied, on a balance of probabilities that the Player not only had not established the source of the Prohibited Substances, but he had also not corroborated his claim withy any specific, probative evidence that he acted unintentionally. The Independent Tribunal was further satisfied that the Player had failed to establish an absence of recklessness with respect to the ADRVs with which he was charged.
The Independent Tribunal thereby determined that a period of Ineligibility of four (4) years should be imposed. The period of Ineligibility commenced on the date of the decision of 11 August 2025, but credit was given for the period Mr Aitkulov was provisionally suspended, therefore running from 23 March 2024.
Sport Resolutions is the independent Secretariat to the International Tennis Integrity Agency Independent Panel.
A copy of the full decision can be accessed via the related links tab on the right-hand side.
Related Documents
- ITIA v Arslanbek AitkulovDecision
