Nijat Rahimov and International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) (cross-appeals)

At a glance

Parties

Nijat Rahimov (weightlifter, Kazakhstan) v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF), and IWF v. Nijat Rahimov (cross-appeals)

Case no.

CAS 2022/A/8802 & CAS 2022/A/9048

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, Appeals Arbitration Division; CAS Code (Articles R47 et seq.); appeal from the CAS Anti-Doping Division award CAS 2021/ADD/21

Treaty

None. Rules applied: IWF Anti-Doping Policy 2015, WADA Code, WADA 2016 Prohibited List

Tribunal

Hans Nater (President), Jeffrey G. Benz, Romano F. Subiotto

Sector

Sport (weightlifting); anti-doping

Outcome

Both appeals dismissed (20 September 2023). The CAS ADD award is confirmed: eight-year ineligibility for Use of a Prohibited Method (urine substitution by doppelgängers), and results from 15 March 2016 to 18 January 2021 disqualified.

Amount

The CAS ADD award, now confirmed, ordered the athlete to pay CHF 4,000 towards the IWF's costs. The costs of the appeal are not shown in the published text.

The dispute

Nijat Rahimov won the gold medal in the men's 77 kg category at the 2016 Rio Olympic Games, competing for Kazakhstan. He had served an earlier two-year ban, imposed in 2013 for anabolic steroids. WADA's "Operation Arrow" investigation used DNA analysis and his steroid profile in the Athlete Biological Passport. It found that four out-of-competition samples recorded in his name in 2016 (15 March, 10 June, 17 July and 18 July) came from other people, known as doppelgängers. In a first-instance award of 22 March 2022, the CAS Anti-Doping Division found that he had used a Prohibited Method (Article 2.2 of the IWF Anti-Doping Policy). It banned him for eight years and disqualified his results, but it rejected the charge that he had used a Prohibited Substance. Rahimov appealed. He argued that providing a sample through a doppelgänger is not "urine substitution" under section M2, that he did not know of the tests, that he should have been charged under Article 2.5 instead, and that the testing had departed from the testing standards. The IWF cross-appealed and asked for an additional finding that he had used a Prohibited Substance.

Key holdings

1. CAS has jurisdiction over both appeals. Jurisdiction is a procedural question, so the 2021 rules in force when the proceedings began apply (tempus regit actum); the parties also accepted jurisdiction by signing the Order of Procedure. The IWF has a legal interest in its cross-appeal even though it cannot change the sanction, because pursuing every anti-doping rule violation serves fair sport. ¶¶ 68–72, 79
2. Using a doppelgänger to provide a sample at collection is "urine substitution" under section M2.1 of the WADA Prohibited List. The wording "including, but not limited to" covers replacing the person who provides the urine, not only replacing urine already collected. The Panel found the unappealed IWF Hearing Panel decision in the Nogay case persuasive. ¶¶ 99–102
3. Following CAS 2017/A/5379, an athlete is liable for a doppelgänger only if (a) he committed an act or omission that facilitated it and (b) he had actual or constructive knowledge that substitution was likely. Both conditions were met. Rahimov gave false whereabouts (he was in Tekeli, not Almaty), his coaches orchestrated the scheme, and he never checked ADAMS, where the tests were recorded. Because Article 2.2 applies, recourse to Article 2.5 is excluded. ¶¶ 108–120
4. Departures from the testing standards (ISTI) do not invalidate the result. Using coaches to arrange notification is justified under ISTI Article 5.3.5. Any departures, even taken together, could not have caused the violation, because the athlete knew of the scheme and facilitated it. ¶¶ 124–127
5. The cross-appeal fails. The substitution, the earlier offence and his unusual performances do not show use of a Prohibited Substance to the standard of comfortable satisfaction. An anti-doping organisation must show what substance was used and that it was present in the samples. ¶ 131
6. Sanction. The four substitutions count as a single violation (Article 10.7.4.1). As a second violation, the four-year period is doubled to eight years (Article 10.7.1(c)), starting on 18 January 2021. There is no elimination for no fault (Article 10.4). Results from 15 March 2016 to 17 January 2021 are disqualified. ¶¶ 134–138

Procedural history

1. September 2019WADA Intelligence & Investigation Department starts Operation Arrow into urine substitution in weightlifting.
2. 18 January 2021The ITA, acting for the IWF, serves a Notice of Charge and provisionally suspends the athlete.
3. 29 April 2021The IWF files a Request for Disciplinary Proceedings with the CAS Anti-Doping Division.
4. 22 March 2022CAS ADD award (CAS 2021/ADD/21): Use of a Prohibited Method found, eight-year ineligibility, results disqualified.
5. 12 April 2022Rahimov files his Statement of Appeal with CAS.
6. 12 July 2022The IWF files its Answer, including a cross-appeal.
7. 22 July 2022Panel constituted.
8. 22 September 2022Hearing at CAS in Lausanne.
9. 20 September 2023Award: both appeals dismissed and the CAS ADD award confirmed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Hans Nater President, CAS Panel — appointed by the institution
• Jeffrey G. Benz Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the claimant
• Romano F. Subiotto Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the respondent

For the claimant

Monia Karmass · Claude Ramoni

For the respondent

Dominique Leroux-Lacroix · Damien Clivaz

Experts

Hans Geyer (respondent)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• weightlifting
• doping
• urine substitution
• doppelgänger
• Prohibited Method
• M2.1 Prohibited List
• Article 2.2 WADA Code
• Article 2.5 tampering
• Operation Arrow
• comfortable satisfaction
• whereabouts
• ISTI departures
• HUNADO
• cross-appeal
• second violation
• eight-year ban
• disqualification of results
• Rio 2016 Olympics

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