International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Dmitriy Chalyy

At a glance

Parties

International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Dmitriy Chalyy (Russian weightlifter)

Case no.

CAS 2023/ADD/60

Forum and rules

CAS Anti-Doping Division; CAS ADD Rules 2021

Instrument

2012 IWF Anti-Doping Policy (substance); 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 violation found, four-year period of ineligibility, results disqualified for four years rather than the nearly ten years sought.

Amount

No monetary amounts stated; the costs section is omitted from the published award.

The dispute

The IWF, the international governing body for weightlifting, brought a case through the International Testing Agency against Russian weightlifter Dmitriy Chalyy. It relied on data from the Moscow laboratory's Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS), which WADA obtained in 2017 and 2019. According to that data, the athlete's in-competition samples of 22 September 2012 (oxandrolone) and 29 November 2013 (oxandrolone and drostanolone) were positive, although RUSADA had reported them as negative under the Russian anti-detection scheme. The IWF alleged Use of a prohibited substance under Article 2.2 of the 2012 IWF Anti-Doping Policy. It sought the maximum four-year ban for aggravating circumstances and the disqualification of all results from 22 September 2012 to 14 September 2022. The athlete did not take part in the proceedings.

Key holdings

1. The CAS Anti-Doping Division has jurisdiction because the athlete did not waive a hearing under Article 8.3.1 of the 2021 IWF ADR. The substance of the case is governed by the 2012 IWF ADP, the rules in force when the violations occurred. ¶¶ 22–27
2. The LIMS data and Professor Saugy's review of the analytical data establish, to the Sole Arbitrator's comfortable satisfaction, that the 2012 and 2013 samples contained prohibited anabolic steroids. The athlete therefore breached Article 2.2 of the 2012 IWF ADP. ¶ 30
3. Aggravating circumstances under Article 10.6 were present: the athlete used multiple anabolic agents on several occasions over thirteen months while protected by the Russian anti-detection scheme. The maximum four-year period of ineligibility applies. The long delay before prosecution does not weigh against the maximum, because the delay resulted from the scheme itself. ¶¶ 33–34
4. Under the fairness exception in Article 10.8, disqualifying results for almost ten years would be excessive. There was no evidence of doping after 29 November 2013, and the period would include the procedural delay. Relying in part on CAS 2018/O/5712, the Sole Arbitrator limited disqualification to four years, matching the period of ineligibility. ¶¶ 36–39
5. Operative part: four years of ineligibility from the date of the award, with credit for any provisional suspension served. All results from 22 September 2012 to 21 September 2016 are disqualified, with forfeiture of medals, points and prizes. Operative part, ¶¶ 3–4

Procedural history

1. 22 September 2012In-competition sample no. 2728463 collected; RUSADA reported it as negative.
2. 29 November 2013In-competition sample no. 2867518 collected; RUSADA reported it as negative.
3. 14 September 2022The ITA, on behalf of the IWF, notified the athlete of the alleged violations and provisionally suspended him.
4. 27 September 2022The athlete returned his Athlete Rights Form and did not admit the violations.
5. 10 May 2023The IWF filed its Request for Arbitration with the CAS ADD. On 11 May 2023, WADA declined to participate.
6. 28 August 2023The CAS ADD confirmed that no hearing would be held.
7. 5 October 2023Award: request 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 rule violation
• oxandrolone
• drostanolone
• anabolic steroids
• LIMS data
• Moscow laboratory
• McLaren report
• Russian anti-detection scheme
• aggravating circumstances
• four-year ineligibility
• disqualification of results
• fairness exception
• proportionality
• CAS Anti-Doping Division
• IWF Anti-Doping Policy 2012
• weightlifting
• RUSADA
• default of respondent

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