Skip to main content
International Arbitration Forum

Mahmoud Al Hamid v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)

Case summary

At a glance

Parties
Mahmoud Al Hamid (Saudi Arabian weightlifter) v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF); interested parties: Saudi Olympic & Paralympic Committee, Saudi Weightlifting Federation, International Olympic Committee
Case no.
CAS OG 24/003
Forum and rules
CAS ad hoc Division (OG Paris 2024); CAS Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games
Panel
Lars Hilliger (Sole Arbitrator)
Sector
Sport; weightlifting; Olympic eligibility
Outcome
Jurisdiction denied (operative part 23 July 2024; reasoned award 27 July 2024). The dispute arose on 24 May 2024, before the ten-day period preceding the Opening Ceremony.
Amount
No amount at stake. No order as to costs; the ad hoc Division's services are free of charge.

The dispute

Mahmoud Al Hamid, a Saudi Arabian weightlifter, was provisionally suspended from 21 January 2024 after his A sample, taken on 25 November 2023 at the Saudi Games, tested positive for EPO. His B sample, analysed on 26 and 29 March 2024, was negative, and the suspension was lifted. While suspended he had missed the 2024 IWF World Cup in Phuket (a mandatory qualifying event) and the Asian Championship in Uzbekistan. On 10 May 2024 he applied to the IWF for an exemption to compete at Paris 2024. By letter of 24 May 2024 the IWF replied that he did not meet the minimum eligibility requirements, and that his application was out of time under the Olympic Qualification System (OQS) and could not go to the qualification Commission. On 22 July 2024 he asked the CAS ad hoc Division for exceptional entry to the Games. He relied on fair play, Article 1.3 of the IWF OQS and the right to a fair hearing. The IWF and the IOC objected that the ad hoc Division lacked jurisdiction ratione temporis, that internal remedies had not been exhausted and that the application was late.

Key holdings

  1. Under Article 1 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules, what matters is when the dispute arose. Here that was 24 May 2024, when the IWF told the athlete that his exemption application could not be put to the qualification Commission. ¶ 33
  2. A dispute does not arise again on each later day on which a decision continues to affect the person concerned. The athlete's 'ongoing impact' argument was rejected. ¶¶ 32–34
  3. The dispute arose before the ten-day period preceding the 26 July 2024 Opening Ceremony, so the CAS ad hoc Division has no jurisdiction. ¶¶ 28, 35, 41
  4. An appeal under the ordinary CAS appeals procedure would in any event be inadmissible, because it was not filed within the time limit of Article R49 of the CAS Code. ¶ 36
  5. No order as to costs. Under Article 22 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules the Division's services are free and each party bears its own costs; no party sought costs. ¶¶ 38–40

Procedural history

  1. 25 November 2023Urine sample taken at the Saudi Games in Riyadh; the A sample later tests positive for EPO.
  2. 21 January 2024The athlete is notified of the positive result and provisionally suspended.
  3. 26 and 29 March 2024The B sample analysis is negative, and the provisional suspension is lifted.
  4. 10 May 2024The athlete applies to the IWF for an exemption to compete at Paris 2024.
  5. 24 May 2024The IWF letter (the Appealed Decision) finds the application out of time and the eligibility requirements unmet.
  6. 22 July 2024Application filed with the CAS ad hoc Division. Lars Hilliger is appointed Sole Arbitrator the same day.
  7. 23 July 2024Written replies filed. No hearing is held. Operative part issued: no jurisdiction.
  8. 27 July 2024Reasoned award issued.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

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 OG 24/003
Claimant
Mahmoud Al Hamid
Respondent
International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)

Procedure: Ad hoc
Sport: Weightlifting
Matter: Eligibility (except nationality)
Outcome: Jurisdiction denied
Panel: Lars Hilliger
Source: Court of Arbitration for Sport case database.