The case involves Iago Gorgodze, a Georgian paralympic powerlifter, who contested an anti-doping rule violation after testing positive for two prohibited substances, 18-Nor-Oxandrolon and stanozolol-N-glucuronide, during an out-of-competition test on September 18, 2014. The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) provisionally suspended Gorgodze, who denied any wrongdoing and requested a B sample analysis, which confirmed the initial findings. Gorgodze argued that procedural departures during sample collection and handling could have compromised the test results, though he provided no concrete evidence. He also requested DNA testing to verify the sample's identity, a procedure not typically required under anti-doping regulations unless specific factual elements justify it.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel examined the case, focusing on the burden of proof and procedural compliance. Under the IPC's Anti-Doping Code (ADC), the IPC had to first prove a violation to the panel's comfortable satisfaction. Gorgodze alleged procedural departures from the International Standard for Testing (IST), but the panel found no evidence that these affected the sample's integrity. The panel rejected his request for DNA testing, as there was no indication of sample tampering or misidentification. Regarding sanctions, the panel noted that Article 10.6 of the ADC allows flexibility in imposing penalties for aggravating circumstances, rather than mandating a fixed four-year sanction.
The IPC Anti-Doping Committee initially disqualified Gorgodze from competitions after September 18, 2014, imposing a four-year ineligibility period and a €1,500 fine. Gorgodze appealed to CAS, arguing that the facts did not justify aggravating circumstances or a maximum sanction. The Panel reviewed the case and concluded that while aggravating circumstances existed—specifically, the use of two anabolic steroids—a four-year ineligibility period was disproportionate. Instead, the Panel reduced the sanction to three years, starting from the date of provisional suspension (October 16, 2014). The Panel upheld the disqualification of results and the fine, finding no grounds for reduction.
The case highlights the procedural complexities in anti-doping disputes, including evidentiary challenges and arbitration timelines. The ruling emphasized the importance of adhering to testing protocols while underscoring that not all procedural departures invalidate test results unless they directly compromise sample integrity. The Panel balanced strict liability with procedural fairness, ultimately upholding the anti-doping violation but adjusting the sanction to reflect proportionality. The decision reinforces the need for athletes to provide credible evidence when challenging adverse findings and underscores the balance between enforcing anti-doping regulations and ensuring fair sanctions.