CAS 2016/A/4632 Alexei Lovchev v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)
Related case:
Swiss Federal Court 4A_80_2017 Alexei Lovchev vs IWF
July 25, 2017
- Weightlifting
- Doping (ipamorelin)
- Request for a further analysis
- Measurement of uncertainty
1. No claim for reanalysis or further analysis arises from any provision of the World Anti-Doping Code or of the IWF Anti-Doping Policy). Even assuming such to be permissible under the applicable regulations, there can be no basis for requiring such further analysis unless the athlete can cast sufficient doubt on the laboratory’s conclusions, and if indeed he can do so, he would not need it.
2. Ipamorelin is not a threshold substance; therefore, irrespective of the concentration of the substance, the sample can be returned positive by the laboratory. Additionally the term uncertainty is used in relevant WADA documents exclusively in the context of threshold substances. Therefore, such data is not relevant for non-threshold substances.
On 13 May 2016 the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Russian Athlete Alexei Lovchev after his A sample tested positive for the prohibited substance ipamorelin in a very low concentration. Also later conducted analysis showed the presence of the substance ipamoreling in the Athlete’s B sample.
In June 2016 the Athlete appealed the IWF Panel decision of 13 May 2016 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The Athlete argued that the IWF had failed to establish to the standard of comfortable satisfaction that the substance in his sample was ipamorelin as distinct from some other benign substance.
The CAS Panel notes that there was, underlying the debate between the parties, a single (but decisive) question. Have the IWF proved to the standard of comfortable satisfaction pursuant to Article 2.1 IWF ADP that the substance found in the Appellant’s urine was Ipamorelin (or its metabolites) as distinct from some other (non-prohibited) substance?
Because the Athlete previously was claiming that the Montreal Laboratory reported a false positive the Montreal Laboratory repeated the analysis showing again the presence of the substance ipamoreling in the Athlete’s B sample.
The CAS Panel observes that the main thrust of the Athlete’s argument was that this matter could and should be resolved one way or another by a further analysis bearing on the detected substance’s ion structure. The Panel notes that the Athlete appears to have sought various and inconsistent explanations for the AAF reported by the Montreal Laboratory supported by the testimony of three experts.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 December 2016:
1.) The appeal filed by Mr Alexei Lovchev on 1 June 2016 against the decision issued by the Hearing Panel of the International Weightlifting Federation on 13 May 2016 is dismissed.
2.) The decision issued by the Hearing Panel of the International Weightlifting Federation on 13 May 2016 is confirmed.
3.) This award is pronounced without costs, with the exception of the CAS Court Office fee of CHF 1,000,00 (one thousand Swiss francs), paid by Mr Alexei Lovchev, which shall be retained by the CAS.
4.) (…).
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.
