CAS 2004/A/607 B. v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)
- Weightlifting
- Doping offence
- Manipulation of sample
- Standard of proof
- Sanction
1. When the physical manipulation of the samples is undisputed, a prohibited doping method in the form of manipulation has occurred under Rule 5.1(b) of the IWF Anti-Doping Policy. The result is a doping offence as the alleged breach in the chain of custody, the alleged manipulation occurring during the period of custody and the alleged fact that the athlete has been victim of a conspiracy have not Under Rule 5.1(b) of the IWF Anti-Doping Policy been demonstrated. As a result, the athlete should be suspended according to the applicable rules.
2. As to the standards of proof to establish that an anti-doping violation has occurred, the IWF Anti-Doping Policy remains silent. According to Swiss law, which has been chosen by the parties, the Panel, based on objective criteria, must be convinced of the occurrence of an alleged fact. However, according to the jurisprudence of the Swiss Supreme Court, no absolute assurance is required; it suffices that the Tribunal has no serious doubts on a specific fact or that the remaining doubts appear to be light. This test is in line with standard CAS practice, providing that an anti-doping rule violation must be established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal. This standard of proof is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In November 2013 the Bulgarian Weightlifting Federation (BWF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete B and two other athletes for tampering (physical manipulation) after the laboratory had reported that their three samples contained the urine from the same athlete.
The IWF submitted a letter to the BWF on 31 March 2004. The letter stated that following negotiations between the IWF and the BWF, the parties agreed to reduce the Athlete’s sanction from a life time ban to eight years and the other athletes’ suspensions from a two year ban to 18 months.
This compromise was accepted by the Board of the IWF to avoid a long-lasting and expensive legal process if the athletes appealed. The letter also indicated that the BWF would have
to pay a fine of USD 60,000, of which USD 30,000 had already been paid, because the BWF had three doping offences within one calendar year.
On 13 April 2004, the Athlete sent to the Executive Board of the IWF a statement in which he refused the 8 year suspension and hereafter he appealed the IWF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
A rigorous analysis of the events surrounding the sample collection phase leads to the Panel's conclusion that the conditions under which the test took place were not satisfactory and offered several opportunities for the Athlete and the other two athletes to engage in manipulation.
The Panel concludes that the Athlete had the motive and the opportunity to manipulate the sample himself or with the assistance of others. The Panel is comfortably satisfied that the IWF has demonstrated that the Athlete did manipulate the sample himself or with the assistance of others.
Therefore on 6 December 2004 the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:
1.) The appeal of Athlete B. against the decision issued on 31 March 2004 by the International Weightlifting Federation is dismissed.
2.) The decision issued by the International Weightlifting Federation on 31 March 2004 concerning the Athlete B. is upheld.
(…)
