International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Hasan Akkus

At a glance

Parties

International Weightlifting Federation (IWF), represented by the International Testing Agency (ITA), v. Hasan Akkus

Case no.

CAS 2021/ADD/38

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, Anti-Doping Division (ADD Rules); seat Lausanne, Switzerland

Treaty

None. Claim under Article 2.5 of the 2012 and 2021 IWF Anti-Doping Rules

Tribunal

Murray Rosen KC (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Sport; weightlifting; anti-doping

Outcome

Request partially upheld (3 January 2023): one tampering violation found, not two; four years' ineligibility.

Amount

No monetary amounts in the published text. The IWF sought 10 years' ineligibility; 4 years were imposed. The costs section is redacted.

The dispute

Hasan Akkus was President of the Turkish Weightlifting Federation (TWF) from 2004 to 2013 and IWF Vice-President from 2009 to 2013. He was later Secretary General (2013–2021) and then President (from 1 April 2021) of the European Weightlifting Federation (EWF). In late 2012, IWF-ordered out-of-competition tests of Turkish weightlifters, carried out by HUNADO, produced adverse analytical findings for stanozolol. Further in-competition positives at the Eilat Championships brought the total to 26 AAFs from 21 athletes. The IWF charged Akkus with tampering under Article 2.5 of its Anti-Doping Rules. It alleged that in January 2013, together with IWF President Tamas Aján and legal counsel Monika Ungar, he produced a letter backdated to 5 November 2012 so that results management could be moved to the TWF. This shielded the TWF from IWF sanctions (including a fine of up to USD 500,000) and kept the cases out of public view. A second charge alleged that in 2021 he used false metadata to make the letter look authentic. Akkus denied that the IWF rules applied to him and that the CAS ADD had jurisdiction or was independent. He also argued that the 2013 charge was time-barred, denied backdating the letter, and said the IWF had agreed to the transfer.

Key holdings

1. The CAS ADD has jurisdiction under Article 8.1.1 of the 2021 IWF ADR. As an EWF officer, Akkus continued to manage a federation affiliated to the IWF. The EWF had agreed to the IWF ADR (Article 16.5.1 of the EWF Constitution), so he remained bound by those rules, including the delegation of anti-doping disputes to the CAS ADD. ¶¶ 100–101, 104
2. Senior officers of a sports federation are bound by its anti-doping rules. The distinction Akkus drew between officials and athlete support personnel was rejected as a false semantic difference. ¶¶ 103–105
3. The challenge to the independence of the CAS ADD is misconceived, in light of Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland. It is not affected by the closed list of arbitrators, the absence of party nominations for sole arbitrators, or the availability of an appeal within CAS. ¶¶ 107–109
4. The charge is not time-barred. The 2015 extension of the limitation period from 8 to 10 years is procedural, and it applied because the 8-year period had not expired when the change took effect. Neither nulla poena sine lege nor lex mitior applies. ¶ 110
5. Akkus tampered with results management for the 21 athletes' AAFs, in breach of Article 2.5. The letter dated 5 November 2012 was in fact drafted with Aján and Ungar around 23 January 2013 to represent falsely that the IWF had already agreed to TWF results management. An earlier oral agreement would not have excused this. His account at the hearing was rejected as a further fabrication. ¶¶ 111–115
6. Using false electronic metadata in 2021 falls within the definition of tampering. It is not a separate violation, however, but aggravation of the 2013 violation. ¶¶ 116–119
7. Sanction: aggravating circumstances "of the worst kind" (a conspiracy among senior officers, the backdated letter and the false metadata) raised the period of ineligibility from two to four years. It runs from the date the award enters into force. ¶¶ 120–122; operative part

Procedural history

1. 10 and 17 November 2012IWF out-of-competition tests of Turkish athletes at Ovacik and Corum. The Cologne Laboratory reports 21 AAFs on 7 December 2012.
2. 23 January 2013The final version of the letter dated 5 November 2012 is sent on TWF letterhead. Results management is transferred to the TWF on 5 and 15 February 2013.
3. 2 August 2013The TWF sanctions all 21 athletes with two years' ineligibility.
4. 4 June 2020The McLaren report finds more than 40 ADRVs not properly pursued by the IWF, including 21 relating to Turkish athletes.
5. 23 June 2021The ITA notifies the first charge. The second charge follows on 1 October 2021.
6. 21 October 2021Request for Arbitration filed. Murray Rosen KC is appointed Sole Arbitrator on 1 November 2021, and the request for bifurcation is later declined.
7. 17 March 2022Online hearing.
8. 3 January 2023Award: one tampering violation found; four years' ineligibility.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

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

For the claimant

International Testing Agency (ITA)

For the respondent

Libra Law SA

Experts

Andrew Sheldon (respondent) · Manuel Rundt (claimant)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• tampering
• results management
• Article 2.5 IWF Anti-Doping Rules
• backdated letter
• metadata
• stanozolol
• weightlifting
• Turkish Weightlifting Federation
• European Weightlifting Federation
• McLaren report
• International Testing Agency
• CAS Anti-Doping Division
• independence of CAS
• Mutu and Pechstein
• statute of limitations
• lex mitior
• aggravating circumstances
• sports officials

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