CAS 2015/A/4160 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) & Davit Gogia
Weightlifting
Doping (stanozolol)
Determination of the standard applicable sanction and of the sanction applicable for a second anti-doping rule violation
Absence of reduction of the standard applicable sanction justified by proportionality
1. Where an athlete has not established, on the balance of probabilities, how a non-specified substance entered his body and has not produced any corroborating evidence - in addition to his word - which establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body the absence of intent from his side to enhance sport performance, it is not sufficient for him to simply assert a state of fact for the panel to accept as true. Considering that the athlete did not offer substantial assistance in discovering or establishing anti-doping rule violations, did not admit an anti-doping rule violation in the absence of other evidence or promptly admitted an anti-doping rule violation after being confronted with a violation, he cannot obtain a reduction of the period of ineligibility under the IWF Anti-Doping Policy (ADP). Therefore, the standard period of ineligibility to be imposed upon the athlete is four years, and this sanction must be increased to eight years if it is the athlete’s second anti-doping rule violation.
2. Bearing in mind that the athlete was suspended for two years because he admittedly used a prohibited non specified substance 2 years before and was caught using the same prohibited substance five days after the end of his first ban, there are not sufficient grounds to even consider the possibility of reducing the standard sanction on the basis of proportionality, simply because the athlete “devotes a large part of his life to weightlifting”. Such an argument is applicable to most – if not to all – international athletes. Furthermore, neither the athlete nor its federation brought forward any personal circumstances of the athlete, which could lead the panel to examine the issue relating to the proportionality of the anti-doping sanctions set out by the IWF ADP.
In May 2015 the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Georgian Athlete Davit Gogia after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance stanozolol.
Previously the Athlete was sanctioned on 31 October 2013 with a 2 year period of ineligibility also testing positive for stanozolol.
On 10 June 2015 the IWF Hearing Panel decided to impose a 5 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete for his second anti-doping rule violation.
Hereafter the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the IWF decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
WADA requested the Panel to set aside the IWF decision of 10 June 2015 and to impose a 8 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. WADA argued that there are no convincing arguments for imposing a reduced sanction by the IWF due to there are no mitigating factors in this case and the application of the principle of proportionality wasn’t justified.
The Panel finds that the Athlete has not established, on the balance of probabilities, how the non-specified substance entered his body. In particular, he has not produced one shred of evidence to substantiate a) that traces of stanozolol could be detected in his bodily specimen two years after its administration, b) if, ever this should be the case, why he tested negative in the tests taken on 20 February and on 31 March 2015 respectively; i.e. before the positive finding resulting from the in-competition test performed on 18 April 2015, during the 2015 European Championships.
Also the Athlete has not produced any corroborating evidence - in addition to his word - which establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel the absence of intent from his side to enhance sport performance. Finally, considering that the Athlete did not offer substantial assistance in discovering or establishing anti-doping rule violations, did not admit an anti-doping rule violation in the absence of other evidence or promptly admitted an anti-doping rule violation after being confronted with a violation sanctionable under the IWF ADP, he cannot obtain a reduction of the period of ineligibility.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 17 March 2016:
1.) The appeal filed on 27 July 2015 by the World Anti-Doping Agency against the decision of the IWF Hearing Panel dated 10 June 2015 is partially upheld.
2.) The paragraphs 1 and 2 of the decision of the IWF Hearing Panel, dated 10 June 2015, are amended as follows:
Mr. Davit Gogia is suspended for a period of eight years running from 7 May 2015, with credit given for any period of ineligibility already served. The remainder of the IWF decision of 10 June 2015 is confirmed.
3.) (…)
4.) (…)
5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed
