The case involves Russian weightlifter Dmitry Lapikov, who appealed against a doping sanction imposed by the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) after testing positive for methylhexanamine, a specified stimulant, during the 2011 European Weightlifting Championships. The IWF initially imposed a four-year ineligibility period, which Lapikov contested, arguing the sanction was disproportionate and that he had not intended to enhance performance. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reviewed the case, applying the principle of lex mitior to reduce the sanction to two years, aligning with an amended IWF Anti-Doping Policy (ADP) that had since been revised to match the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code. However, the CAS panel rejected Lapikov's request for further reduction under Article 10.4 of the IWF ADP, which allows leniency if an athlete proves the substance was not intended to enhance performance. The panel found Lapikov, as a professional athlete, had taken a risk by consuming a supplement labeled for performance enhancement, indicating intent, either directly or through "dolus eventualis." The panel also dismissed arguments based on proportionality, noting the sanction was not excessively harsh and that the risk of missing major events like the Olympics is inherent in anti-doping regulations.
Lapikov claimed he had taken the supplement, M5 Extreme, for recovery after illness and surgeries, not to enhance performance, and had consulted his team doctor, Dr. Petrov, who initially approved the supplement. However, the panel noted inconsistencies in Lapikov's statements and found that he and Dr. Petrov had failed to thoroughly verify the supplement's compliance with anti-doping rules, despite warnings about supplement risks. The supplement's labeling explicitly mentioned performance-enhancing effects, further undermining Lapikov's claim of innocent intent. The panel emphasized that athletes bear strict liability for substances in their bodies and must exercise caution, even when advised by medical personnel. The panel also rejected Lapikov's argument under Article 10.5.2 of the IWF ADP, which allows reduced sanctions for no significant fault or negligence, as the supplement's labeling clearly indicated the presence of a prohibited substance.
The CAS panel upheld the two-year ineligibility period, starting from May 13, 2011, concluding that Lapikov had failed to demonstrate the absence of intent or significant fault. The decision underscores the strict liability principle in anti-doping regulations and the high burden on athletes to prove exceptional circumstances for leniency. The ruling highlights the importance of athlete accountability and the need for rigorous compliance with anti-doping rules, even in cases involving supplements. The panel's decision reflects the CAS's commitment to upholding the integrity of anti-doping measures, balancing fairness with the need to deter doping in sports.