Skip to main content
International Arbitration Forum

Riza Kayaalp v. United World Wrestling (UWW)

Case summary

At a glance

Parties
Riza Kayaalp (Turkey) v. United World Wrestling (UWW)
Case no.
CAS 2025/A/11254 (appeal against CAS ADD decision in CAS 2023/ADD/110)
Forum and rules
Court of Arbitration for Sport, Appeals Arbitration Division; Code of Sports-related Arbitration (Articles R47 et seq.); UWW Anti-Doping Rules 2021 and WADA Code 2021, with Swiss law applying subsidiarily
Panel
Vladimir Novak (President), Jeffrey G. Benz, Carine Dupeyron
Sector
Wrestling; anti-doping
Outcome
Appeal partially upheld (28 October 2025). The ADRV was found not intentional, and the four-year ineligibility was reduced to 18 months on the ground of No Significant Fault or Negligence.
Amount
No monetary award. The costs rulings in points 4 and 5 of the operative part are redacted in the published award.

The dispute

Riza Kayaalp, a Turkish Greco-Roman wrestler and three-time Olympic medallist, tested positive for trimetazidine (TMZ) in an out-of-competition sample taken on 28 May 2024. TMZ is a non-specified substance under Section S4 of the WADA Prohibited List 2024. He explained that he had taken Vastarel for tinnitus, dizziness and vertigo after a blow to the ear in training on 13 May 2024. An emergency doctor had prescribed it, and before taking it he consulted his personal ENT specialist and his club doctor, who both told him it was safe. A Single Judge of the CAS Anti-Doping Division imposed four years of ineligibility for an intentional violation. On appeal the athlete argued that he had not acted with indirect intent and that he bore No Significant Fault or Negligence. UWW, represented by the International Testing Agency, argued that relying on doctors without basic checks was reckless, because the Vastarel packaging named TMZ and the Turkish leaflet warned athletes about anti-doping tests.

Key holdings

  1. CAS has jurisdiction under Articles 13.2 and 13.2.1 of the UWW ADR and Article A21 of the CAS ADD Rules. The appeal, filed on 13 March 2025 against a decision notified on 24 February 2025, is admissible. ¶¶ 53–61
  2. On the balance of probabilities, the athlete genuinely asked his personal doctor and his club doctor whether Vastarel was safe in anti-doping terms, and he relied on their answers. The club doctor's failure to do even basic research was a serious professional failure. ¶ 87
  3. Reliance on doctors does not give an athlete carte blanche, but in certain circumstances it can exclude intent, though not necessarily fault. Manifest disregard requires an utmost lack of care. Carrying out none of the five standard checks is manifest disregard, but a genuine attempt at some of them may fall short of it. ¶¶ 96–101
  4. The ADRV was not intentional under Article 10.2.3. The athlete's consultations, though clumsy and ineffective, showed awareness of the anti-doping "minefield" rather than manifest disregard of it. They were supported by contemporaneous evidence and by testimony at the hearing. The Panel rejected UWW's argument that this finding would open the floodgates. The base sanction is therefore two years. ¶¶ 103–105
  5. No Significant Fault or Negligence applies under Article 10.6.2. The athlete relied entirely on his doctors and skipped basic checks, and as an experienced elite athlete prescribed medication in his native language he should have known better. Against this, his genuine willingness to check and the serious medical incident counted in his favour. The Panel fixed the sanction at 18 months, within the range of 12 to 24 months. ¶¶ 106–108
  6. The 18-month period runs from 24 February 2025, with credit for the provisional suspension from 1 July 2024 until 23 February 2025. Results from 28 May 2024 to 1 July 2024 remain disqualified, with forfeiture of medals, points and prizes. ¶ 110; operative part

Procedural history

  1. 28 May 2024Out-of-competition doping control; urine and blood samples collected.
  2. 27 June 2024The Lausanne WADA-accredited laboratory reports an Adverse Analytical Finding for TMZ in the A-sample.
  3. 1 July 2024The ITA, on behalf of UWW, notifies the AAF and imposes a mandatory provisional suspension.
  4. 12 July 2024The ITA issues a Notice of Charge seeking four years of ineligibility for at least indirect intent.
  5. 17 September 2024The ITA refers the case to the CAS Anti-Doping Division; Petra Pocrnic Perica is appointed Single Judge.
  6. 24 February 2025The CAS ADD decision (CAS 2023/ADD/110), rendered without a hearing, imposes four years of ineligibility.
  7. 13 March 2025The athlete files his Statement of Appeal with the CAS Appeals Division.
  8. 16 April 2025The Panel is constituted.
  9. 17 June 2025Hearing at the CAS Court Office in Lausanne.
  10. 28 October 2025Award: appeal partially upheld; ineligibility reduced to 18 months.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by
For the claimant
Claude Ramoni · Hacer Nurdan Yildiz · Emre Bas · Kaya Arda
For the respondent
International Testing Agency (ITA)

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 2025/A/11254
Claimant
Riza Kayaalp
Respondent
United World Wrestling (UWW)
Documents

Procedure: Appeal
Sport: Wrestling
Matter: Doping
Outcome: Partially Upheld
Panel: Jeffrey G. Benz, Carine Dupeyron, Vladimir Novak
Source: Court of Arbitration for Sport case database.