The case involves Mita Overvliet, a Dutch weightlifter, appealing a four-year suspension imposed by the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) for doping violations. Overvliet tested positive for norandrosterone (linked to nandrolone) and furosemide during the 2011 European Weightlifting Championships. She admitted to using furosemide for a medical condition without a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) but claimed ignorance regarding nandrolone, attributing it to unverified supplements. The IWF’s Doping Hearing Panel imposed the suspension under its Anti-Doping Policy (ADP), which stipulated a four-year ban for first-time offenses, contrary to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code’s standard two-year penalty for first violations.
The central legal issue revolved around the compatibility of the IWF’s ADP with the WADA Code. The WADA Code, a contractual instrument, requires implementation by signatories like the IWF. The Sole Arbitrator, applying Swiss law, emphasized that association rules must be interpreted objectively, focusing on the clear wording of the text. The ADP’s specific provision for a four-year penalty was deemed to override the preface’s general reference to the WADA Code, as the former constituted a lex specialis (specific rule overriding general ones). The Arbitrator found no violation of Swiss public policy or the athlete’s personality rights, upholding the IWF’s authority to enforce stricter sanctions.
Overvliet sought a reduction of her suspension to two years, arguing the IWF’s ADP should align with the WADA Code. The IWF countered, requesting dismissal of the appeal and reimbursement of costs. The Arbitrator rejected Overvliet’s request to consider additional case materials, ruling the existing submissions sufficed for a decision. The award affirmed the four-year suspension, emphasizing the clarity of the IWF’s rules and their lawful application under Swiss law. The case underscores the autonomy of sports federations in adopting anti-doping regulations, provided they comply with overarching legal frameworks.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) confirmed its jurisdiction under Article R47 of its Code, as the IWF’s rules provided for appeals to CAS. The applicable law included the IWF ADP, the WADA Code, and subsidiarily Swiss law, given the IWF’s domicile in Switzerland. The CAS noted that the Olympic Charter did not apply to this case. The IWF ADP explicitly adopted the WADA Code with modifications, including the four-year sanction for first-time violations. The Appellant argued this modification violated the WADA Code’s requirement for signatories to implement its provisions without substantive changes. The CAS examined whether the IWF’s deviation from the WADA Code’s standard two-year sanction was permissible, particularly in light of WADA’s confirmation of the IWF’s compliance.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the IWF’s decision, dismissing the appeal and confirming the four-year ban, effective from 23 May 2011. The ruling emphasized that the sanction was justified given the serious nature of doping in weightlifting, particularly the use of anabolic steroids, which can significantly enhance performance. The CAS found the four-year ineligibility period appropriate as a deterrent and not in violation of Swiss public policy. The decision underscores the strict stance against doping in weightlifting and the importance of maintaining integrity in the sport through stringent penalties. The ruling was finalized on 25 May 2012.