CAS 2011/A/2612 Liao Hui v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)
Related case:
Swiss Federal Court 4A_576_2012 Liao Hui vs IWF
February 28, 2013
- Weightlifting
- Doping (boldenone)
- Conditions for the admissibility of a request for declaratory relief
- Internal and external chain of custody according to the WADA Technical Document TD2009LCOC
- Compatibility of the standard sanction rule of an international federation with the WADC
- Legal relationship between an international federation and WADA or the IOC
- Principle of hierarchy of norms under Swiss law
- Special situation in a particular sport as “aggravating circumstance” according to the WADC
1. A request for declaratory relief is – in line with the Article 182 PILA - only admissible under two conditions. First, the purpose of the declaratory relief must be aimed at clarifying the (non-)existence of a legal relationship between the parties. Declaratory relief sought in relation to facts or general questions of law are, therefore, not admissible. In addition, the party requesting declaratory relief must show a special legal interest to obtain the respective declaration from the arbitral tribunal.
2. According to the WADA Technical Document TD2009LCOC there is an internal and an external chain of custody. The WADA Technical Document TD2009LCOC does not establish any prerequisites or conditions for the latter. The addressees of this document are the WADA-accredited laboratories, which are by their very nature not involved in the sample collection process and, therefore, cannot document the external chain of custody.
4. The wording of Art. 10.2 of the IWF Anti-Doping Policy (ADP) and Art. 10.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) is different. A standard doping sanction of two (2) years is significantly different than a standard sanction of four (4) years. This is all the more true, since the requirements listed in the WADC are – in principle – not only to be construed as minimum standards but also as maximum standards. The four year standard sanction in the IWF ADP is, thus, a “substantive change”, which is not “mitigated” by a deviating standing practice of the IWF.
5. The legal relationships between an international federation and WADA or the IOC on the one hand are distinct from the contractual relationship between an athlete and an international federation on the other hand. The latter is solely governed by the federation’s regulations (including the documents referred therein) and subsidiarily by Swiss law. Whether or not the international federation is in breach towards third parties in respect of the way it enacted its anti-doping policy is, therefore, in principle of no avail for the legal relationship between the athlete and the federation, since the legal effects arising from the different contractual relationships are, in principle confined to the parties of that legal relationship. Hence, the WADC is – even if the relevant international federation is a signatory to the WADC - not a document that by its very nature is directly applicable between said federation and its affiliated athletes.
6. According to the principle of hierarchy of norms, and subject to well-defined exceptions, rules and resolutions enacted by an association must be in compliance with the highest regulatory framework, i.e. the statutes of the associations. In case of contradiction between lower ranking norms and the statutes it is the latter – subject to well-defined exceptions - that take precedence.
7. The comments to Art. 10.6 IWF ADP / WADC do not refer in the context of “aggravated circumstances” to the general circumstances and conditions in a particular sport or within a specific federation as such. The fact that some sports may have a more nuanced doping problem as others is, therefore, of no avail in the context of this provision. According to the rationale of the WADC, differences between various sports cannot command nor justify a different regime on sanctions.
In September 2010 the International Weightlifting Federation reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Liao Hui after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Boldenone.
Consequently the IWF Doping Hearing Panel decided on 3 October 2011 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete
Hereafter the Athlete appealed the IWF Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Athlete requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to impose a reduced sanction.
The Athlete made the following assertions:
- The chain of custody as of sample collection (i.e. in Beijing) until the time, the samples arrived at the Cologne laboratory is incomplete;
- There is no documentation accounting for the location or the condition of the sample between 2 und 9 September 2010 (transport from Beijing to Budapest; storage of sample at HUNADO);
- The AAF for the A and B samples are not established and the IRMS test results are not reliable, mainly because of lack of reproducibility and failure to properly identify the analytes of interest;
- The sanction imposed by the IWF Doping Hearing Panel violates the World Anti-Doping Code.
The IWF contended that the Athlete failed to establish that the Cologne laboratory did not conduct the analyses in accordance with the WADA International Standard for Laboratories (ISL). Furthermore, the IWF deemed that the sanction imposed on the Athlete is fair, proportionate and in line with the applicable regulation and principles of law.
Following assessment of the case the Panel determines:
- the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation (presence of Boldenone / Boldenone metabolites in his bodily specimen);
- the period of ineligibility to be imposed upon the Athlete is to be reduced from four (4) to two (2) years; and
- all other prayers for relief are rejected or dismissed.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 23 July 2012:
1.) The appeal filed by Mr Liao Hui on 25 October 2011 is upheld insofar as the Appellant requests the Panel to set aside the decision rendered by the IWF Doping Hearing Panel and to declare that he shall be suspended for a period of two (2) years.
2.) The period of ineligibility imposed by the IWF Doping Hearing Panel on Mr Liao Hui is reduced from four (4) years ineligibility to two (2) years ineligibility.
3.) (…)
4.) (…)
5.) All other or further prayers of relief are dismissed.
