CAS 2002/A/370 Lazutina v/ IOC
CAS 2002/A/370 L. / International Olympic Committee (IOC)

Related cases:

• IOC 2002 IOC vs Larissa Lazutina
  February 24, 2002
• IOC 2002 IOC vs Olga Danilova
  February 24, 2002
• Swiss Federal Court 4P.267_2002 Larissa Lazutina & Olga Danilova vs IOC and FIS
• Swiss Federal Court 4P.268_2002 Larissa Lazutina & Olga Danilova vs IOC and FIS
• Swiss Federal Court 4P.269_2002 Larissa Lazutina & Olga Danilova vs IOC and FIS
• Swiss Federal Court 4P.270_2002 Larissa Lazutina & Olga Danilova vs IOC and FIS
  May 27, 2003

• Cross Country Skiing/Olympic Games
• Doping (darbepoetin)
• Reliability of the testing method

1. Although darbepoetin is not specifically listed as a prohibited substance in the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code (“OMAC”), it is an analogue or mimetic of erythropoietin which is recombinant EPO in that it is an artificial substance which is not naturally produced by the human body unlike natural EPO. Therefore it is a prohibited substance. In accordance with the OMAC, its use is permitted only to treat insulin-dependent diabetes and even then, only if written notification has been given prior to the particular competition by an endocrinologist or the team physician. In the present case no written notification has been given.

2. Contrary to the allegation that the methodology of testing for darbepoetin is experimental and not legally nor scientifically accepted, evidence was given as to the methodology and reliability of the combined blood and urine test. The existing test for EPO whether natural or recombinant can be used without modification to detect darbepoetin. On the basis of the existing evidence, the CAS considers that the methodology of testing for erythropoietin and darbepoetin is scientifically sound, and that the results produced by the tests are reliable.

Ms. Larissa Lazutina is a Russian Athlete competing in the 4x5 kilometer women’s relay cross-country skiing race ath the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympic Games.

In February 2002 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Darbepoetin (dEPO)

The IOC Disciplinary Commission concluded that the Athlete had committed a doping offence. On the 24 February 2002 the IOC Executive Board accepted the conclusions and recommendations of the Disciplinary Commission. The Disciplinary commission disqualified the Athlete from the women’s 30 kilometre classical cross-country skiing race, ordered the withdrawal of her medal and diploma and ordered her exclusion from the Olympic Winter Games 2002.

As a result of the Athlete's violation the FIS decided on 3 June 2002 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter the Athlete filed several appeals against the imposed sanctions with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS 2002/A/371 [IOC] and CAS 2002/A/398 [FIS]).

The issue in this appeal can be shortly stated. The Athlete  contends that the methodology of testing for darbepoeitin is experimental, and is neither legally nor scientifically accepted. In particular, she contends that it is not permissible to use the method of testing for erythropoietin in order to test for darbepoetin.

Furthermore, she contends that the test on the B sample was improperly carried out as the urine sample was poured from the sample bottle into a dirty, non-sterile container. There was, therefore, she submits, a danger of contamination.

Considering the evidence, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the methodology of testing for erythropoietin and darbepoetin is scientifically sound, and that the results produced by the tests are reliable.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 29 November that:

1.) The appeal filed by Larissa Lazutina on 13th March 2002 is dismissed.

2.) The decision of the IOC Executive Board of 24th February 2002 is confirmed.

3. (...).

CAS 2008/A/1664 International Rugby Board (IRB) v. Luke Troy & Australian Rugby Union (ARU)

Related cases:

• CAS 2008_A_1652 WADA vs Luke Troy & ARU - Preliminary Award
  March 18, 2009
• CAS 2008_A_1664 IRB vs Luke Troy & ARU - Partial Award
  August 6, 2009
  
  

• Rugby
• Doping (attempt use of prohibited substance)
• Determination of the applicable sanction

An athlete having committed an anti-doping rule violation by engaging in conduct pursuant to which he sought to acquire “Prohibited Substances” over the internet, should be sanctioned with a two years suspension. The period during which time the athlete was provisionally suspended shall be deducted from the end date of the sanction imposed.

By a Partial Arbitral Award delivered by the Panel on 2 June 2009 the appeal of the International Rugby Board (IRB) against the decision of the ARU judicial committee of 12 March 2008 was in part allowed and the decision of the ARU judicial committee was set aside.

By lts Award the Panel ruled that Mr Troy had committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to By-Law 5.2.2 of the ARU Anti-Doping By-Laws by engaging in conduct pursuant to which he sought to acquire "Prohibited Substances" over the internet.

It was further ruled by that Award that the question of sanction be reserved and directions were given as to the filing in the CAS Oceania Registry of written submissions by the parties as to sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 6 August 2009 that:

1.) The period of ineligibility of Mr Luke Troy will be two years from 2 June 2009.

2.) The period of ineligibility of Mr Luke Troy referred to in order 1 above will be reduced by a period of 28 days and will terminate on 5 May 2011.

3.) (…).

CAS 2006/A/1067 International Rugby Board (IRB) v. Jason Keyter

• Rugby
• Doping (benzoylecgonine)
• Burden and standard of proof
• Duty to establish the route of ingestion
• Significant negligence

1. The burden of proof is initially on the party asserting that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. As to the standard of proof, the same party shall establish “to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body” that a violation has occurred. This standard of proof is greater than “a mere balance of probability” but less than “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. Once the Sport Federation has discharged the above burdens, the athlete accused of the anti-doping rule violation is subject to “strict liability”. This means that the presence in the athlete’s body or bodily specimen of a prohibited substance, regardless of the athlete’s intent, knowledge, fault or negligence, is sufficient to establish an anti-doping rule violation and thus the athlete’s presumptive guilt. The athlete may rebut the presumption of guilt by proving absence of fault or negligence or, alternatively, absence of significant fault or negligence. The athlete is required to establish that the fault or negligence was not significant on the “balance of probability”.

2. The failure to establish how the prohibited substance entered the athlete’s bodily specimen means that exceptional circumstances have not been established and there can be no reduction in the sanction from the otherwise established two year suspension. The mere allegation that the athlete has no idea how a forbidden substance entered into his body, and relies as a possible explanation on the ingestion of cocaine through a “spiked drink” that was offered him by strangers in a night club is not sufficient to establish the route of ingestion.

3. An athlete is significantly negligent when he/she failed to exercise any caution (let alone the utmost caution), thereby failing both the “No Fault or Negligence” test and the “No Significant Fault or Negligence” test. The submission that getting drunk, and possibly not realizing and/or remembering what was going on, cannot be considered as an exceptional circumstance excusing an athlete from his/her fault or negligence.

On 16 March 2006 the Review Panel of the Rugby Football Union (RFU) decided to uphold the sanction of 12 months imposed on the rugby player Jason Keyter after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cocaine. 

Hereafter in April 2006 the International Rugby Board (IRB) appealed the RFU Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). IRB requested the Panel to set aside the appealed decision and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that:

• The Athlete alleged to have committed a doping violation bears the burden of persuading the judging body that the occurrence of a specified circumstance is more probable than its non-occurrence.
• The Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation is proven to its comfortable satisfaction, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation.
• The Athlete's failure to establish how the prohibited substance had entered his bodily specimen means that exceptional circumstances have not been established and there can be no reduction in the sanction from the otherwise established two year suspension.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 13 October 2006:

1.) The appeal filed by the International Rugby Board on 7 April 2006 is upheld and the Decision issued by the Review Panel of the RFU on 16 March 2006 is varied to impose a two year sanction.

2.) Mr Jason Keyter is declared ineligible for a period of two years, from 15 November 2005 to 14 November 2007.

(…).

CAS 2011/A/2675 Mita Overvliet v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF)

• Weightlifting
• Doping (norandrosterone; furosemide)
• Scope and applicability of the WADA Code
• Interpretation of statutes and regulations of a federation
• Interpretation of an IF’s rule providing a four years ineligibility for a first offence contrary to the WADA Code
• Compatibility with Swiss law

1. The WADA Code is neither a law nor an international treaty. It is rather a contractual instrument binding its signatories in accordance with private international law. To become applicable, the WADA Code must be accepted and implemented according to the signatory’s authority and within its relevant spheres of responsibility. To become applicable, the WADA Code and its provisions need to be transformed into the regulations of a signatory.

2. According to Swiss law, statutes and regulations of associations have to be construed and interpreted in the same way as public laws. The Swiss Federal Tribunal and leading commentators tend to interpret the statutes and regulations of associations in an objective way, comparable to the interpretation of statutory law. Accordingly, CAS jurisprudence requires the interpretation of the statutes and rules of sport associations to be objective and always to start with the wording of the rule. It follows that the adjudicating body has to consider the meaning of the rule, looking at the language used, the appropriate grammar and the syntax. The intentions (objectively construed) of the association including any relevant historical background may be taken into consideration.

3. By way of interpretation of an International Federation’s (IF) Anti-Doping Program (ADP) it has to be examined whether the ADP provides a four or a two years’ ineligibility for a first doping violation. The wording of the relevant article of the ADP is specific, clear and unambiguous and provides for a four years’ ineligibility for a first violation. However, there is an inconsistency between the preface of the ADP, which forms an integral part of the ADP, and the relevant article since in the preface it is stated that the IF accepted the revised (2009) WADA Code providing a two years’ ineligibility. Interpreted from the perspective of a systematic interpretation, the article providing specifically a four years’ period should prevail over the preface of the IF’s ADP and its general reference to the WADA Code as it is a lex specialis.

4. The four years’ sanction of ineligibility for a first doping offence does not violate the personality rights of an athlete nor Swiss public policy.

On 2 December 2012 teh IWF Doping Hearing Panel decided to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Dutch weightlifter Mita Overvliet after her A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substances Furosemide and 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

Hereafter in December 2012 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 Sole Arbitrator assessed and addressed these issues raised by the Athlete:

• Scope and applicability of the WADA Code;
• WADA's compliance reports are not decisive;
• Has the 2 years' period of ineligibility become part of the IWF's own regulations?;
• No discretion to reduce the period of ineligibility;
• Article 10.2 IWF ADP does it violate Swiss Law.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 25 May 2012:

1.) The Appeal filed by Ms. Mita Overvliet on 23 December 2011 against the decision dated 2 December 2011 rendered by the IWF Doping Hearing Panel is dismissed.

2.) The decision rendered by the IWF Doping Hearing Panel on 2 December 2012 is confirmed. Ms. Mita Overvliet being ineligible to compete in weightlifting competitions for a period of four years starting from 23 May 2011.

(…)

5.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS CG 06/01 Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) vs Raju Edwin

CAS CG 06/02 Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) vs Tajinder Singh

In March 2006 during the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games the Indian weightlifters Raju Edwin and Tajinder Singh tested positive for the prohibited substance Stanozolol.

Following notification the Athlete's denied the use of any prohibited substance and disputed the validity of the test results.

Because there were 4 adverse analytical findings reported on the occasion of doping controls carried out on the Indian national team members in 2006 consequently the International Weightlifting Federation decided to suspend the Indian Weightlifting Federation.

On 25 March 2006 in this interim order the Ad hoc Panel provides the Athletes the opportunity to consider with the aid of an expert whether the analysis of the their samples relied on to support a case of violation of the anti-doping rules was in any way flawed.

Therefore on 26 March 2006 the Ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides:

(1) By 06:00pm Swiss time on 28 March 2006, the Respondents produce a report from their expert on the analytical data to be distributed in accordance with directions of the CAS Secretariat.

(2) By 06:00pm Swiss time on 29 March 2006, the Respondents indicate to CAS in Lausanne whether in the light of such report, the Respondents continue to dispute the findings of violation of an anti-doping rule, and if so, on what basis.

(3) If and in so far as the Respondents continue to dispute the findings on the basis that the analysis of their samples was in some material way flawed, the CGF has until 06:00pm Swiss time on 31 March 2006 to produce a report in defence of the analysis to be distributed on the same basis.

(4) The Panel refers the dispute to arbitration by the CAS in accordance with the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (Article 20 (a) and (c) (i) and (iii) of the ad hoc Rules)

(5) If a defence is advanced by the Respondents, further directions will be given for its resolution.

If, however, the Respondents advance no defence, the Panel will as soon as possible determine that an anti-doping rule violation has been committed (see article 28.8 (d) of the CGF Constitution), and the Federation Court will thereafter impose the sanctions provided for under article 28.9. (The Panel further draws attention to article 28.10, although its implementation is not a matter for it.)

CAS 2011/A/2336 WADA v. FCL & Margarita Mercado Villarreal

CAS 2011/A/2339 WADA v. FCL & Katerine Mercado Villarreal

Ms Margarita Mercado Villarreal and Ms Katerine Mercado Villarreal are two sisters of Columbian nationality who compete as weightlifters at a highly competitive level. They tested positive for 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone) in an out-of-competition test performed in Cali on 19 October 2009.

Following a hearing on 11 June 2010 the Colombian Weightlifting Confederation (FCL) decided to impose a sanction of 1 year on the two Athletes including disqualification of their results.

Hereafter in January 2011 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the FCL Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested to set aside the Appealed Decisions and to impose a sanction of 2 years on the Athletes.

WADA contended that the Athletes failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that there had been departures of the ISTI that could have caused the positive test results. Further the Athlete failed to explain the presence of the prohibited substance in their system.

Following assesment of the case the Panel determines:

• The presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athletes' samples and accordingly they committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• The Athletes failed to establish the existence of circumstances permitting the reduction or elimination of the sanction.
• The anti-doping tests performed by on the Weightlifters were properly canied out.
• The Athletes' allegations concerning the sample collection and storage procedures:
  • (i) are not relevant; and/or
  • (il) have not been proven on the balance of probability; and/or
  • (iii) could in no manner cause their adverse analytical flndings.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decides on 2 March 2012:

1.) The Appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the Disciplinary Commission of the Federación Colombiana de Levantamiento de Pesas further to a hearing on 11 October 2010 concerning Ms Margarita Mercado Villarreal (a minor) and Ms Katerine Mercado Villareal is set aside, except for the rulings related to (i) the "Liga de Levantamiento de Pesas de Bolivar" and (ii) the removal of results and return of trophies, medals and prices, which have not been appealed against.

3.) Ms Margarita Mercado Villarreal is declared ineligible for a period of two years, starting from the date of notification of this award. Any period of ineligibility that she has already served, as attested by the International Weightlifting Federation, shall be credited against the above mentioned period of two years of ineligibility.

4.) Ms Katerine Mercado Villarreal is declared ineligible for a period of two years, starting from the date of notification of this award. Any period of ineligibility that she has already served, as attested by the International Weightlifting Federation, shall be credited against the above mentioned period of two years of ineligibility.

5.) Ms Margarita Mercado Villarreal, Ms Katerine Mercado Villarreal and the Federación Colombiana de Levantamiento de Pesas shall bear the entire costs of the proceedings, to be determined and served on the parties by the CAS Court Office, for which they are jointly and severally liable.

6.) Ms Margarita Mercado Villaireal, Ms Katerine Mercado Villarreal and the Federación Colombiana de Levantamiento de Pesas are ordered to pay the total amount of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs), for which they are jointly and severally liable, to the World Anti-Doping Agency.

7.) All other requests, motions or players for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2011/A/2336 WADA v. FCL & Margarita Mercado Villarreal

CAS 2011/A/2339 WADA v. FCL & Katerine Mercado Villarreal

Ms Margarita Mercado Villarreal and Ms Katerine Mercado Villarreal are two sisters of Columbian nationality who compete as weightlifters at a highly competitive level. They tested positive for 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone) in an out-of-competition test performed in Cali on 19 October 2009.

Following a hearing on 11 June 2010 the Colombian Weightlifting Confederation (FCL) decided to impose a sanction of 1 year on the two Athletes including disqualification of their results.

Hereafter in January 2011 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the FCL Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA requested to set aside the Appealed Decisions and to impose a sanction of 2 years on the Athletes.

WADA contended that the Athletes failed to demonstrate with corroborating evidence that there had been departures of the ISTI that could have caused the positive test results. Further the Athlete failed to explain the presence of the prohibited substance in their system.

Following assesment of the case the Panel determines:

• The presence of a prohibited substance had been established in the Athletes' samples and accordingly they committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• The Athletes failed to establish the existence of circumstances permitting the reduction or elimination of the sanction.
• The anti-doping tests performed by on the Weightlifters were properly canied out.
• The Athletes' allegations concerning the sample collection and storage procedures:
  • (i) are not relevant; and/or
  • (il) have not been proven on the balance of probability; and/or
  • (iii) could in no manner cause their adverse analytical flndings.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decides on 2 March 2012:

1.) The Appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency is upheld.

2.) The decision rendered by the Disciplinary Commission of the Federación Colombiana de Levantamiento de Pesas further to a hearing on 11 October 2010 concerning Ms Margarita Mercado Villarreal (a minor) and Ms Katerine Mercado Villareal is set aside, except for the rulings related to (i) the "Liga de Levantamiento de Pesas de Bolivar" and (ii) the removal of results and return of trophies, medals and prices, which have not been appealed against.

3.) Ms Margarita Mercado Villarreal is declared ineligible for a period of two years, starting from the date of notification of this award. Any period of ineligibility that she has already served, as attested by the International Weightlifting Federation, shall be credited against the above mentioned period of two years of ineligibility.

4.) Ms Katerine Mercado Villarreal is declared ineligible for a period of two years, starting from the date of notification of this award. Any period of ineligibility that she has already served, as attested by the International Weightlifting Federation, shall be credited against the above mentioned period of two years of ineligibility.

5.) Ms Margarita Mercado Villarreal, Ms Katerine Mercado Villarreal and the Federación Colombiana de Levantamiento de Pesas shall bear the entire costs of the proceedings, to be determined and served on the parties by the CAS Court Office, for which they are jointly and severally liable.

6.) Ms Margarita Mercado Villaireal, Ms Katerine Mercado Villarreal and the Federación Colombiana de Levantamiento de Pesas are ordered to pay the total amount of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs), for which they are jointly and severally liable, to the World Anti-Doping Agency.

7.) All other requests, motions or players for relief are dismissed.

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.