The case involves Liao Hui, a Chinese weightlifter, appealing against a doping violation sanction imposed by the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF). The dispute centers on the presence of boldenone, a prohibited substance, in his urine sample collected during an out-of-competition test in September 2010. The sample was transported under strict conditions, stored securely, and analyzed by a WADA-accredited laboratory in Cologne, which confirmed the adverse finding. The IWF provisionally suspended Liao Hui and later upheld the violation, leading to his appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel examined several legal issues, including the admissibility of declaratory relief, chain of custody procedures, and the compatibility of the IWF’s Anti-Doping Policy (ADP) with the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC). The IWF’s ADP imposed a four-year sanction for doping violations, differing from the WADC’s standard two-year sanction. The panel noted this discrepancy, emphasizing that the WADC sets both minimum and maximum standards, making the IWF’s stricter policy a substantive change not justified by its practice. The panel clarified that an athlete’s contractual relationship with a federation is governed by the federation’s regulations and Swiss law, not directly by the WADC.
Liao Hui argued procedural flaws in the sample chain of custody and the reliability of test results, including the laboratory’s failure to perform an Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry (IRMS) analysis to confirm the exogenous origin of boldenone. The panel rejected these claims, finding no violations of WADA’s Technical Documents or International Standards for Laboratories. The panel upheld the validity of the adverse analytical finding, concluding that the laboratory’s procedures were compliant and the sample’s integrity was maintained.
The panel also addressed the appropriateness of the four-year sanction. While the IWF argued that steroid use in weightlifting justified stricter penalties, the panel found no evidence of aggravating circumstances specific to Liao Hui’s case, such as repetitive use or deceptive conduct. The panel emphasized that the WADC aims for harmonized sanctions across sports, and statistical differences in doping prevalence cannot justify varying penalties. Applying the principle of contra proferentem, the panel interpreted the IWF’s ambiguous rules in favor of the athlete, reducing the sanction to two years.
Ultimately, the CAS panel partially upheld Liao Hui’s appeal, reducing his ineligibility period from four to two years. The decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness, adherence to international standards, and the need for clear, consistent anti-doping regulations. The case highlights the complexities of balancing strict anti-doping enforcement with athletes’ rights and the principle of harmonization under the WADC.