Skip to main content
International Arbitration Forum

Alex Schwazer v. World Athletics

Case summary

At a glance

Parties
Alex Schwazer (Italy) v. World Athletics (WA)
Case no.
CAS 2023/A/10209
Forum and rules
Court of Arbitration for Sport, Appeals Arbitration Division; CAS Code (2023 edition); WA Anti-Doping Rules (2021 edition), Monegasque law subsidiarily
Treaty
None. Appeal under Rule 13.2 of the WA Anti-Doping Rules
Tribunal
André Brantjes (President), Ulrich Haas, Ken Lalo
Sector
Athletics (race walking); anti-doping
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and the Athletics Integrity Unit's decision of 10 November 2023 refusing to suspend part of the athlete's ban for substantial assistance confirmed (operative part 15 March 2024; reasoned award 15 May 2024).
Amount
No damages at issue. The athlete asked for the rest of his eight-year ban (due to expire on 7 July 2024) to be suspended. The Panel held that the CAS costs regime (Article R64) applies, not the free-of-costs regime (Article R65). The cost allocation is redacted in the published award.

The dispute

Alex Schwazer, an Italian race walker and 2008 Olympic champion, is serving an eight-year ban for a second anti-doping rule violation (testosterone, sample of 1 January 2016), imposed by the 2016 CAS Award in CAS 2016/A/4707. In 2021 he reported that V., a former athlete banned for life, was working for a national athletics federation; V. admitted the breach in October 2022. Schwazer then asked for 50% of his ban to be suspended for substantial assistance under Rule 10.7.1(a) of the WA Anti-Doping Rules. Because the time to appeal the 2016 sanction had expired, any suspension needed WADA's approval. WADA refused on 6 November 2023, citing his doping history, his public claims of a conspiracy to manipulate his sample, and his lack of cooperation, including a breach of confidentiality. WA denied the application on 10 November 2023. Schwazer appealed, arguing that WA and WADA had abused their discretion. WA argued that he should have named WADA as a respondent and that the discretion had been properly exercised.

Key holdings

  1. The Panel left open whether WA has standing to be sued alone without WADA, because the answer would not change the outcome. It nonetheless noted that WA issued the decision in a vertical dispute, that nothing was sought against WADA, and that nothing in the decision or in WADA's letter told the athlete to name WADA as a respondent. ¶¶ 117–127
  2. A suspension for substantial assistance is discretionary, and there is no automatic right to it. The discretion covers three questions: whether the assistance is substantial, whether it justifies a suspension, and in what proportion. CAS review is limited to whether the decision is reasoned and free of a manifest error of assessment or abuse of power. The decision remains WA's sole responsibility, even though it rested on WADA's refusal to approve. ¶¶ 137–145
  3. It was not an abuse of discretion to treat the athlete's full doping history as so serious that no suspension was warranted. He is serving an eight-year ban that came directly after a ban of three years and nine months. The Bolzano criminal decision does not bind the Panel, and the Swiss Federal Tribunal dismissed his request to revise the 2016 award. ¶¶ 151–155
  4. It was legitimate to take into account the athlete's lack of cooperation. He gave only basic information on his earlier violations, refused to identify the source of his information, and admitted disclosing the confidential process to the Gazzetta dello Sport, contrary to Article 4.1 of the International Standard for Results Management. ¶¶ 158–161
  5. Exercising the right of defence, or public comments by people not representing the athlete, should not by themselves bar a suspension. Given the other grounds, however, reliance on his public conspiracy statements did not show an abuse of discretion. WADA could also weigh that the information came from open sources and led to no new sanction. The process was abnormally long, but WADA's requests for further information were not an abuse of power. ¶¶ 164–176
  6. Costs: a refusal to suspend part of a ban for substantial assistance is not a decision of an exclusively disciplinary nature. It imposes no new sanction and concerns eligibility. Article R65 (free of costs) therefore does not apply, and the proceedings are governed by Article R64. ¶¶ 181–187
  7. Procedure: an expedited procedure under Article R52(4) of the CAS Code requires the parties' agreement. WA's request to bifurcate the standing issue was rejected for reasons of procedural efficiency, because a split hearing would have made the athlete's hope of qualifying for the Paris 2024 Olympics moot. ¶¶ 100–106

Procedural history

  1. 11 August 20162016 CAS Award (CAS 2016/A/4707): the athlete is found to have committed a second anti-doping rule violation and is banned for eight years.
  2. 28 September 2021The Swiss Federal Tribunal dismisses the athlete's request to revise the 2016 CAS Award.
  3. 17 July 2021The athlete reports V.'s breach of his lifetime ban to WADA and the AIU.
  4. 17 January 2023The athlete asks for 50% of his period of ineligibility to be suspended.
  5. 6 November 2023WADA refuses to approve any suspension. On 10 November 2023 WA (AIU) denies the application.
  6. 11 December 2023Statement of Appeal filed with CAS.
  7. 24 January 2024Panel constituted. On 29 January 2024 it rejects WA's request for bifurcation.
  8. 27 February 2024Hearing held by videoconference.
  9. 15 March 2024Operative part issued: appeal dismissed. The reasoned award follows on 15 May 2024.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by
For the claimant
Maria Laura Guardamagna · Massimiliano Valcada · Gerhard Brandstätter · Thomas Tiefenbrunner
For the respondent
Louise Reilly

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.

Case ID
CAS 2023/A/10209
Claimant
Alex Schwazer
Respondent
World Athletics
Documents

Procedure: Appeal
Sport: Athletics
Matter: Doping
Outcome: Dismissed
Panel: Ulrich Haas, Ken Lalo, André Brantjes
Source: Court of Arbitration for Sport case database.