International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Armen Alekyan

At a glance

Parties

International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Armen Alekyan (Russian weightlifter)

Case no.

CAS 2023/ADD/59

Forum and rules

CAS Anti-Doping Division; CAS ADD Rules 2021

Treaty

None; 2012 IWF Anti-Doping Policy (substance) and 2021 IWF Anti-Doping Rules (procedure)

Tribunal

Murray Rosen KC (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Weightlifting; doping

Outcome

Request partially upheld (5 October 2023): anti-doping rule violations found, four years' ineligibility, results disqualified for four years (21 June 2012 to 20 June 2016) instead of the ten years requested.

Amount

No monetary amounts stated in the published extract; the costs section is omitted.

The dispute

The IWF, assisted by the International Testing Agency, charged Russian weightlifter Armen Alekyan with use of prohibited substances. The charge rested on two urine samples collected by RUSADA on 21 June and 8 October 2012. Both were reported as negative at the time. Moscow laboratory LIMS data that WADA later obtained, reviewed by Professor Martial Saugy, showed oxandrolone and methylhexanamine in the first sample and oxandrolone and 19-norandrosterone in the second. The IWF sought a finding of violation under Article 2.2 of the 2012 IWF Anti-Doping Policy, the maximum four-year ban for aggravating circumstances, and disqualification of all his results from 21 June 2012 to 20 June 2022. The Athlete filed no Answer. In a single email he said the charges were unreasonable and lacked evidence, asked about the B sample, and asked that the charges be dropped because of the lapse of time.

Key holdings

1. The CAS ADD has jurisdiction. The IWF delegated its first-instance hearings to the CAS ADD under Article 8.1 of the 2021 IWF ADR, and the Athlete did not waive a hearing; he asked for referral to the CAS ADD. The 2021 IWF ADR govern procedure. The 2012 IWF ADP govern the substance, subject to lex mitior. ¶¶ 26–31
2. The LIMS data and Professor Saugy's review comfortably establish that both 2012 samples contained prohibited substances, so the Athlete breached Article 2.2 of the 2012 IWF ADP. The negative reports at the time are explained by the Russian anti-detection scheme. The Athlete's email denial 'verge[s] on the frivolous'. ¶¶ 34–35
3. Aggravating circumstances under Article 10.6 justify the maximum four-year period of ineligibility. The Athlete used multiple prohibited substances, including anabolic agents, on two occasions about four months apart, while protected by the anti-detection scheme. The long delay before prosecution does not weigh against the maximum sanction, because the delay was caused by the scheme itself. ¶¶ 38–39
4. Fairness exception applied to disqualification (Article 10.8). There was no evidence of doping after 29 November 2013. Disqualifying almost ten years of results would be excessive. Taking account of CAS 2018/O/5712 and CAS 2018/O/5713, disqualification is limited to four years from 21 June 2012, the same length as the ban. ¶¶ 41–44
5. Operative part: four years' ineligibility from the date of the award, with credit for provisional suspension served. Results from 21 June 2012 to 20 June 2016 are disqualified, with forfeiture of medals, points and prizes. All other prayers for relief are dismissed. Operative part, ¶¶ 1–4, 7

Procedural history

1. 21 June and 8 October 2012RUSADA collects two urine samples from the Athlete; both are reported as negative in ADAMS.
2. 16 July and 9 December 2016Professor Richard McLaren publishes his two reports on systemic doping in Russia.
3. 20 June 2022The ITA, for the IWF, notifies the Athlete of the alleged violations and provisionally suspends him.
4. 7 October 2022After two contradictory Athlete Rights Forms, the Athlete denies the violations and asks for referral to the CAS ADD.
5. 10 May 2023The IWF files its Request for Arbitration with the CAS ADD. On 11 May 2023 WADA declines to participate.
6. 4 July 2023The Athlete's only submission: an email disputing the charges.
7. 5 October 2023Award: the request is partially upheld.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Murray Rosen Sole arbitrator, CAS Anti-Doping Division — appointed by the institution

Experts

Martial Saugy (claimant) · Aaron Walker (claimant) · Julian Broséus (claimant)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• anti-doping
• CAS Anti-Doping Division
• weightlifting
• oxandrolone
• methylhexanamine
• 19-norandrosterone
• Russian doping scheme
• LIMS data
• McLaren Report
• aggravating circumstances
• four-year ineligibility
• disqualification of results
• fairness exception
• proportionality
• IWF Anti-Doping Policy 2012
• use of prohibited substance
• RUSADA

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