The case revolves around an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against a decision by the Polish Weightlifting Federation (PWF) regarding weightlifter Marzena Karpinska. Karpinska tested positive for 19-norandrosterone, a metabolite of the prohibited substance nandrolone, during the Polish Weightlifting Championships in June 2012. The initial decision on 13 September 2012 imposed a two-year ineligibility period, but Karpinska appealed, arguing the low concentration of the substance and her clean doping history suggested unintentional use. On 3 October 2013, the PWF Committee reduced her suspension to 16 months, allowing her to compete in the 2013 Weightlifting World Championships, where she placed fifth.
WADA challenged this reduction, asserting that as an international-level athlete, Karpinska should have appealed directly to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) under Article 13.2.1 of the Anti-Doping Model Rules. WADA argued the PWF lacked jurisdiction to modify its own decision and sought to reinstate the original two-year sanction, plus an additional eight months to cover the period from the shortened suspension’s end until the CAS ruling. The case was assigned to a sole arbitrator, Fabio Iudica, who ruled the PWF Committee had no authority to hear the appeal, as CAS was the proper forum. However, the arbitrator declined to impose the additional eight-month suspension, allowing Karpinska to retain her awards and earnings from competitions during the contested period.
The arbitrator emphasized procedural correctness while balancing fairness for the athlete. The final award upheld WADA’s appeal in principle, setting aside the PWF’s decision and reinstating the original two-year sanction. An additional eight-month ineligibility period was imposed from the date of the CAS award, but the athlete’s results during the contested period were not disqualified. The ruling highlighted the importance of adhering to anti-doping regulations and the jurisdictional limits of national federations, while also considering equitable outcomes for athletes. The case underscores the complexities of anti-doping enforcement and the role of CAS in resolving such disputes.