The Mudryk case: does a polygraph carry any weight in a doping case?

On 31 July 2026 the English Football Association (FA) announced that the anti-doping case against Mykhailo Mudryk, the Chelsea and Ukraine winger, had been closed and that he was free to return to the pitch. This was reported by ESPN, UNIAN and Suspilne. Ukrainian sports websites then recalled that the footballer had taken a polygraph test while the case was under way, and here and there headlines appeared suggesting that it was the lie detector that saved him. Here I go through what is known for certain and what is not.

What is known about the case itself

According to UNIAN’s account of the FA statement, an out-of-competition sample was taken from Mudryk on 22 October 2024 and was found to contain meldonium at a low concentration. In December 2024 he was provisionally suspended. In January 2026 the case was heard by an independent regulatory commission, and in the spring it became known that he had received the maximum sanction of four years. The footballer appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The case never reached a CAS ruling. On 30 July 2026 the FA and the player, with the agreement of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), concluded a settlement agreement. Mudryk admitted the anti-doping rule violation, and the suspension was limited to the period he had already served.

The FA gave the reason itself: WADA had changed its technical requirements for reporting meldonium. The changes are not retroactive, but if the same sample were taken today, that concentration would not be reported as a positive result at all. ESPN and Sports Illustrated both report this.

Throughout, the footballer himself maintained that he had never knowingly taken a banned substance.

What is known about the polygraph

Here there are far fewer facts, and all of them are second-hand.

In December 2024 sport.ua, citing a Telegram channel, wrote that Mudryk had taken a polygraph test in London. In April 2025 Shakhtar’s chief executive, Serhiy Palkin, said in an interview with GiveMeSport that the test had been arranged by the player’s lawyers, that he had passed it and that the result would form part of the evidence that the violation was unintentional (as reported by Goal.com). In August 2026 sport.ua, citing the journalist Ihor Burbas, reported that the defence had submitted the polygraph results together with medical reports.

What is not in the public domain: who conducted the test, which technique was used, what questions were asked and how the FA commission assessed this material. The official announcements that the case had been concluded, as relayed by ESPN, UNIAN and Suspilne, do not mention the polygraph at all.

So, according to media reports, there was a test and its result was in the player’s favour. Yet the initial decision was still as severe as it could be, and the FA attributed the final outcome to the change in WADA’s technical rules. There are no grounds for saying that the polygraph decided anything. Sport.ua acknowledges the same: the lie detector results did not produce a breakthrough.

How much weight a polygraph carries in sports arbitration

Doping cases are governed by strict liability: if the substance is in the sample, there is a violation. Intent affects only the length of the sanction. That is exactly why athletes take a polygraph test — to back up the words “I didn’t know”.

CAS has treated such tests in different ways. As The Conversation describes, in 2008, in the case of the sailor Simon Daubney, the court did not admit the polygraph as evidence and regarded it merely as a personal statement by the athlete. In 2012, in the case of the cyclist Alberto Contador, the court did admit the results, because the anti-doping code allows facts to be established by any reliable means. But it gave them little weight: they add some support to the athlete’s account and do not outweigh the rest of the evidence. Contador was banned all the same.

The logic is clear. The test is commissioned by one party, which also chooses the examiner and agrees the questions. The other party is not present. Besides, a polygraph does not show how a substance got into the body. It assesses only a person’s reactions to specific questions.

A practitioner’s comment

The wording in the news reports that the answers “exceeded the average trust norm several times over” means nothing to me — there is no such term in the profession. In my practice a conclusion takes one of three forms: no reactions indicative of deception were found; such reactions were found; the result is inconclusive.

One more thing. A question about intent — “did you take it knowingly?” — is harder to test than a question about an action: “did you take drug X during such-and-such a period?” A good test is built on specific actions. And I always advise looking at who commissioned the test and who worded the questions: that determines how far the other party will trust the conclusion.

What this means for you

The picture in Ukraine is similar. There is no separate law on the polygraph. A polygraph examiner’s report is not in itself evidence in court. A court requires a forensic psychophysiological examination, and even that is assessed by the court together with the other evidence. For more detail, see the article on polygraph law in Ukraine. This is not legal advice: in a specific case, consult a lawyer.

If you are accused of something, a private test can be useful as an additional argument in negotiations, in an internal investigation, or in a conversation with an employer or a partner. You should not count on it closing the matter by itself.

For employers: a test is possible only with the employee’s voluntary written consent, and an employee cannot be dismissed for refusing.

Practical tips

• Word your questions around specific actions, with dates and names. In my practice that means 3–4 relevant questions per test.
• Allow enough time. A classic polygraph test takes 1.5–3 hours: an interview, a discussion of every question and several presentations of the test. The accuracy of the method is 85–89% (American Polygraph Association meta-analysis, 2011). No method gives 100%.
• Do not try to “prepare” with tricks. It is practically impossible to beat a polygraph — a polygraph examiner usually spots attempts at countermeasures. How to behave is described in the article on how to pass a polygraph.
• If you need the report for court, first ask your lawyer whether it would be better to apply for a forensic examination straight away.
• I conduct tests in person only in Lviv. For other cities there is the VerifEye online test taken on a smartphone (10–25 minutes, 84–89% accuracy according to the developer), or you can travel to Lviv. The cost is on the prices page.

Questions and answers

Did the polygraph prove Mudryk’s innocence?

No. According to media reports he passed the test, but the case was closed by a settlement agreement after WADA’s technical rules changed, and the player admitted the rule violation.

Does a court accept the result of a private polygraph test?

In Ukraine a polygraph examiner’s report is not in itself evidence. For court purposes a forensic psychophysiological examination is ordered, and it is assessed together with the other evidence.

Can I take a test in order to show the result to an employer or a partner?

Yes, with your voluntary written consent. The test is confidential: you decide who gets to see the report.