International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) v. Irakli Turmanidze

At a glance

Parties

International Weightlifting Federation (IWF), represented by the International Testing Agency (ITA), v. Irakli Turmanidze (Georgia)

Case no.

CAS 2022/ADD/45

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD Arbitration Rules); first-instance disciplinary proceeding

Treaty

None. Instruments applied: IWF Anti-Doping Rules (2009, 2015 and 2021 versions) and the World Anti-Doping Code, with Swiss law applying subsidiarily

Tribunal

Prof. Matthew Mitten (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Sport: weightlifting (doping)

Outcome

Request partially upheld (award of 3 January 2023). The Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation and received two years' ineligibility. Only his results from 16 April 2012 to 15 April 2014 were disqualified, not the full period to November 2021 that the ITA sought.

Amount

No monetary amounts stated. The costs section of the published award is redacted.

The dispute

Irakli Turmanidze is a Georgian weightlifter. He gave an in-competition urine sample on 15 April 2012 at the 2012 IWF European Championships in Antalya, where he won bronze in the +105 kg category. The A sample tested negative in April 2012. The B sample stayed in long-term storage at the Cologne laboratory. After the McLaren Report on the IWF's anti-doping programme, the ITA had the sample re-analysed in 2021, and it tested positive for a stanozolol metabolite. Acting for the IWF, the ITA charged him with presence of a prohibited substance under the 2009 IWF ADR. It sought two years' ineligibility and disqualification of all his results from 15 April 2012 to 17 November 2021, a period that included the 2012 London Olympics (4th place), the 2015 European title and a 2016 Rio Olympic bronze. The Athlete argued that the re-analysis was invalid for two reasons: there was no documented request by the Testing Authority for long-term storage, and the 8-year maximum storage period in the 2012 International Standard for Laboratories had expired. In the alternative, he argued that the "fairness" exception limited disqualification to two years.

Key holdings

1. The anti-doping rule violation is established to the Sole Arbitrator's comfortable satisfaction under Articles 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 of the 2009 IWF ADR. A prohibited substance was found in the B1 sample, and the Athlete waived analysis of the B2 sample. ¶¶ 64–69
2. The IWF could not produce any record of its request to keep the sample in long-term storage. This does not defeat the violation, because the Athlete did not claim that this departure from the laboratory standard could reasonably have caused the adverse finding (Article 3.2.1 of the 2009 IWF ADR). ¶¶ 73–77
3. The claim is not time-barred. A statute of limitation is a procedural rule governed by tempus regit actum. The 2015 and 2021 IWF ADR extended the 8-year period to 10 years with retroactive effect where the old period had not yet expired. This is consistent with Swiss law, CAS jurisprudence and the European Convention on Human Rights. The ITA notified the Athlete on 17 November 2021 and filed on 12 April 2022, both within 10 years of 15 April 2012. ¶¶ 78–88
4. The Athlete receives a two-year period of ineligibility from the date of the award, with credit for the provisional suspension served since 17 November 2021. In a footnote, the Sole Arbitrator noted that Article 10.2 of the 2009 IWF ADR provides for four years for a first violation. ¶ 93 and n. 1
5. Under the fairness exception in Article 10.8 of the 2009 IWF ADR, the athlete must prove on a balance of probability that disqualifying all his results would go beyond what is reasonably necessary to achieve the rule's objectives. The exception does not apply where it would defeat those objectives: deterring doping and rewarding clean athletes. ¶¶ 105–106
6. Fairness limits disqualification to two years. This was a single first violation, the Athlete later returned many negative tests, and there was no evidence of other violations. His results from 16 April 2012 to 15 April 2014 are disqualified, including his 4th place at the 2012 London Olympics, together with his automatically disqualified 2012 Antalya results. His later results stand. ¶¶ 108–111

Procedural history

1. 15 April 2012In-competition sample collected at the 2012 IWF European Championships in Antalya. The A sample was reported negative on 30 April 2012.
2. 4 June 2020McLaren Report identifies more than 40 anti-doping rule violations that the IWF had not properly pursued.
3. June 2021Re-analysis of the B sample by the Cologne laboratory returns an adverse finding for stanozolol metabolite, reported on 15 June 2021.
4. 17 November 2021The ITA notifies the Athlete of the adverse finding and provisionally suspends him.
5. 12 April 2022The ITA, on behalf of the IWF, files a Request for Disciplinary Proceedings with the CAS ADD.
6. 2 May 2022Prof. Matthew J. Mitten confirmed as Sole Arbitrator.
7. 19 October 2022Hearing held by videoconference.
8. 3 January 2023Award: request partially upheld; two years' ineligibility; results disqualified from 16 April 2012 to 15 April 2014.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Matthew Mitten Sole arbitrator, CAS Anti-Doping Division — appointed by the institution

For the claimant

Ayesha Talpade · Damien Clivaz

For the respondent

Lukasz Klimcztyk

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• doping
• stanozolol
• weightlifting
• anabolic steroids
• sample re-analysis
• long-term storage
• statute of limitation
• retroactivity
• tempus regit actum
• lex mitior
• fairness exception
• disqualification of results
• period of ineligibility
• International Standard for Laboratories
• McLaren Report
• International Testing Agency
• CAS Anti-Doping Division
• London 2012 Olympics

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