The case involves Saeid Ali-Hosseini, an Iranian weightlifter, who appealed a lifetime ban imposed by the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) following his second doping violation. His first violation in 2006 resulted in a two-year suspension for clenbuterol. The second violation occurred in October 2009 when an out-of-competition test detected methandienone, a prohibited substance under the 2009 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code and IWF Anti-Doping Policy. The IWF provisionally suspended Hosseini and informed him of his right to request B-sample analysis, which he did, though he waived attendance. The B sample confirmed the A sample's findings, leading to a lifetime ban under Article 10.7.1 of the IWF policy, which mandates stricter penalties for repeat offenders.
Hosseini appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing procedural violations, including insufficient notification of the B-sample test date, and contested the severity of the lifetime ban. The CAS panel rejected these claims, ruling that the IWF had properly notified Hosseini through the Iranian Weightlifting Federation (Iran WF), which acted on his behalf when requesting the B-sample test and waiving attendance. The panel found no evidence that Iran WF acted independently, given the close communication between Hosseini and the federation during the World Championships where the provisional suspension was issued.
Hosseini sought annulment of the ban or a reduced penalty, claiming no fault or significant fault for the first violation, which he attributed to his coach administering clenbuterol without his knowledge. The CAS panel acknowledged the lack of justification for a lifetime ban in the initial decision and considered mitigating factors, including the unintentional nature of the first violation. However, it noted the second violation involved methandienone, a steroid unlikely to enter his system accidentally. Balancing these factors, the panel reduced the penalty from a lifetime ban to twelve years of ineligibility, effective from the date of sample collection in October 2009.
The CAS decision emphasized the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and the need for deterrence while allowing for flexibility in sanctions under the 2009 WADA Code. The ruling dismissed Hosseini's other claims and upheld the doping violation, reinforcing the authority of sports federations to impose severe penalties to maintain competitive integrity. The case highlights the importance of proper notification procedures, the role of national federations in doping disputes, and the nuanced application of anti-doping rules to ensure fairness and proportionality in disciplinary measures. The outcome serves as a reminder of the stringent enforcement of anti-doping policies, particularly for repeat offenders, within the framework of international sports governance.